Case law

Miner v. Novotny

304 Md. 164 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 4, 1985

The privilege, and the resultant immunity enjoyed by the publisher, may be either absolute or qualified. As we explained in DiBlasio v. … immunity.”

Fortunati v. Campagne

681 F. Supp. 2d 528 · District Court, D. Vermont · Dec 29, 2009

Under qualified immunity doctrine, government actors are not liable for damages unless they “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Judge Sessions recently laid out the second step as follows: The second step of the qualified immunity analysis asks whether the officials’ actions violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional lights of which

Dearmon v. Burgess

388 F.3d 609 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 8, 2004

R.Crim.P. 41 and state law did not constitute a § 1983 violation because the officers had not violated clearly established constitutional law. … If so, we next "ask whether the right was clearly established." Id.

Shawn C. Pride, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Various John Does, Trooper Jan Lamb, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee

997 F.2d 712 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 15, 1993

Because Officer Lamb raised the defense of qualified immunity, it was incumbent upon Pride to “show that the law was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred and come forward with facts or allegations sufficient … to show that the official violated the clearly established law.”

Wynn v. City of Lakeland

727 F. Supp. 2d 1309 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 20, 2010

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … To receive qualified immunity protection, the government official must first establish that he was acting within his discretionary authority at the time of the alleged violation. Cottone v.

Estate of Smith v. Michigan

256 F. Supp. 2d 704 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 7, 2003

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity on all federal constitutional claims. … Furthermore, when a defendant asserts a qualified immunity bar in a motion to dismiss a section 1983 claim, the plaintiffs complaint must *713 establish the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Gavonna Willis v. Juanita Mills

141 F.4th 905 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 20, 2025

of a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” … The district court’s denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity was proper.

Snider v. Pekny

899 F. Supp. 2d 798 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 27, 2012

Governmental officials are entitled to immunity from civil liability under § 1983 for their actions, with the important qualifier that the officials’ conduct must not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional … Snider’s argument against qualified immunity is that his “Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches, seizures, and arrest was clearly established at the time.” DE 98 at 12.

Biase v. Kaplan

852 F. Supp. 268 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 9, 1994

In order to defeat an assertion of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant official violated a “clearly established” right held by the plaintiff. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Cruise-Gulyas v. Minard

918 F.3d 494 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 13, 2019

Minard filed an interlocutory appeal, arguing that he is entitled to qualified immunity because, even assuming he violated Cruise-Gulyas's constitutional rights, those rights were not clearly established. … Qualified immunity protects police from personal liability unless they violate a person's clearly established constitutional or statutory rights. Kisela v.

Leticia Rudolph v. Daniel Babinec

939 F.3d 742 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 20, 2019

Qualified immunity shields government officials from individual liability if they did not violate a clearly established right “of which a reasonable person” in the same situation would have known. Harlow v. … is clearly established” (emphasis added)).

Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor

723 F.3d 91 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 17, 2013

jurisdiction only over qualified immunity appeal) … Martz and Taylor asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity in their Answer to Hernandez-Cuevas's complaint and filed a motion to dismiss arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity on Hernandez-Cuevas's

Patterson v. Armstrong County Children and Youth Services

141 F. Supp. 2d 512 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 2001

Qualified Immunity — Substantive Due Process All defendants raise qualified immunity as a defense to plaintiffs’ civil rights claims. … The “clearly established law” element of qualified immunity is flexible enough to embrace clearly established law of other circuits. See, e.g., Turiano v.

Masters v. Gilmore

663 F. Supp. 2d 1027 · District Court, D. Colorado · Oct 5, 2009

The Law of Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields governmental officials performing discre *1042 tionary functions from liability for civil damages provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … Masters cannot satisfy the second prong of qualified immunity analysis and show that the rights were clearly established at the time the violations occurred. Remarkably, Mr.

LeFever v. Ferguson

956 F. Supp. 2d 819 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 9, 2013

Raker’s qualified immunity defense. … clearly established as early as 1964.”

Thompson v. Clarke

848 F. Supp. 1452 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Apr 14, 1994

established” constitutional rights such that the prison officials are not protected by qualified immunity from an award of damages in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. … Plaintiffs correctly point out that for purposes of qualified immunity, in deciding whether something is “clearly established” the court is to examine whether there is a degree of factual correspondence between previous cases

Warren v. Coffee County Commission

942 F. Supp. 1412 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 9, 1995

Clearly Established Law The court now turns to the clearly established law prong of the qualified immunity test. … Qualified immunity is appropriate on the excessive force claim. B.

Lee v. Cline

384 Md. 245 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 13, 2004

that the plaintiff had presented no evidence of malice to overcome Cline’s qualified immunity. … Consequently, judicial opinions dealing with the well-established limitations upon public official immunity furnish no authority for judicially creating similar limitations upon the broad statutory immunity granted by the

Doe ex rel. Doe v. Petaluma City School District

54 F.3d 1447 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 12, 1995

“On review of a denial of qualified immunity, ‘[w]e have jurisdiction only to decide if defendant’s conduct violated ... clearly established [law].’ ” Pelletier v. … “[S]pecifie binding precedent is not required to show that a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.” Maraziti, 953 F.2d at 525 , quoting Brady v.

Hare Ex Rel. Hare v. City of Corinth

135 F.3d 320 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 5, 1998

The bifurcated test for qualified immunity is quite familiar: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; and, (2) if so, whether the defendant’s … The second prong of the qualified immunity test is better understood as two separate inquiries: whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident;