Case law

Brindley v. Best

192 F.3d 525 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 22, 1999

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional … clearly established rights.

López-Quiñones v. Puerto Rico National Guard

526 F.3d 23 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 21, 2008

Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 , 100 S.Ct. 1287 , 63 L.Ed.2d 574 (1980), and that in any event, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because any such protection was not clearly established at the time of Lopez’ termination … Still remaining is the question whether his status was clearly established at the time of his termination.

Tryon v. Town of North Branford

58 Conn. App. 702 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jul 11, 2000

The doctrine that determines the tort liability of municipal employees is well established. “ ‘Although municipalities are generally immune from liability in tort, municipal employees historically were personally liable for … Andrews, supra, 211 Conn. 507 -508, in which our Supreme Court discussed the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to the general rule of qualified governmental immunity.

Berryman v. Niceta

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 8, 2025

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … those rights were clearly established at the time.”

Visser v. Magnarelli

542 F. Supp. 1331 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 9, 1982

Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 , 100 S.Ct. 1920, 1924 , 64 L.Ed.2d 572 (1980), clearly requires a defendant to plead a defense of qualified immunity, as defendants-councilors have done here. … Treen, 671 F.2d 892, 899-900 (5th Cir. 1982) (violation of clearly established state law vitiates objective prong of good faith immunity defense).

Robertson (ID 76205) v. Lee

District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 8, 2019

right was clearly established.” … A dispositive motion based on qualified immunity places the occurred and that the right was clearly established when the violation occurred. Green v.

Maresca v. County of Bernalillo

804 F.3d 1301 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 22, 2015

On cross- motions for summary judgment, the district court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they had not violated clearly established Fourth Amendment standards. … Because the reasonableness inquiry overlaps with the qualified immunity 21  analysis, a qualified immunity defense is of less value when raised in defense of

Housing Works, Inc. v. Giuliani

56 F. App'x 530 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 3, 2003

right to be free from such conduct was not clearly established at the time of the conduct; or (3) if the defendant’s action was objectively reasonable in light of the legal rules clearly established at the time it was taken … established and consequently, a defendant against such a claim is entitled to qualified immunity.

Estate of Simpson v. Yellowstone County

229 F. Supp. 3d 1192 · District Court, D. Montana · Jan 24, 2017

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability so long as the officers’ conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Clearly Established Right Because a constitutional violation has been found, the next step in the qualified immunity analysis is to ask “whether the right was clearly established ... in light of the specific context of the

Hill v. Taconic Developmental Disabilities Services Office

57 F. App'x 9 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 2, 2002

‘good faith’ qualified immunity cannot attach.” … ’t do it’ or that it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his action did not violate clearly established law.”

Dawkins v. Graham

50 F.3d 532 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 14, 1995

Qualified immunity does not shield the officers from a lawsuit for damages if a reasonable officer would have known the officers’ actions violated clearly established law. Hummel-Jones v. … First, the law prohibiting the officers’ conduct was clearly established at the time of the raid.

Thomas v. Nicholson

21 V.I. 561 · Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands · Sep 20, 1985

; rather, he was only eligible for qualified immunity. … Even where the assistant commissioner was in the position of acting commissioner, he was still not deemed by the Court to be a “superior executive officer” and, therefore, could only claim a qualified immunity.

Evans v. City of Zebulon

351 F.3d 485 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 18, 2003

Stephens is entitled to qualified immunity, however, because as of January 22, 1999, the law was not clearly established that an arrestee could not constitutionally be strip searched under the conditions alleged. … Only decisions of the Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the highest court of the relevant state clearly establish the law for purposes of qualified immunity. Marsh, 268 F.3d at 1032 n. 10. .

Horlock v. Georgia Department of Human Resources

890 F.2d 388 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 13, 1989

immunity from damages because defendants’ actions allegedly did not violate any “clearly established” right of plaintiff, as required in order to avoid the qualified immunity of public officials to such suits. … Horlock had no property interest, the defendants did not violate a “clearly established right” and thus were entitled to qualified immunity on the section 1983 due process claim.

Burnham v. West

681 F. Supp. 1169 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jan 29, 1988

Here the Court, upon reconsideration, intentionally sweeps more broadly than in its earlier ruling on whether defendants violated "clearly established" constitutional rights. … If there are means to show that rights are clearly established other than by controlling precedent as required by Wallace v.

O'CONNELL v. Gorski

715 F. Supp. 1201 · District Court, W.D. New York · Mar 14, 1989

immunity from liability for civil damages inasmuch as their decision to dismiss the plaintiff did not violate any of his “clearly established” rights. 4 Harlow v. … It merely supports the con- *1206 elusion that the law was in fact not clearly established at the time of his dismissal and that, therefore, Gorski and NeMoyer are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages.

M.M.T. v. United States

337 F. Supp. 3d 1099 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 30, 2018

The Court will only address the qualified immunity issue because the Government and Taitano are obviously entitled qualified immunity and it is unnecessary to engage in a detailed, multi-factor analysis to determine whether … Therefore, Taitano is entitled to qualified immunity. See , e.g. , United States v.

Tinsley v. Pittari

952 F. Supp. 384 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 1, 1996

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights. … To the extent the claim is so construed, defendants’ previously-established entitlement to qualified immunity is applicable. The outcome is the same under a Fourteenth Amendment analysis.

Harris v. DeBellis

658 F. App'x 940 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 10, 2016

Because De-Bellis asserts qualified immunity, however, we may first consider whether DeBellis violated clearly established law. … Under the clearly established law prong of qualified immunity analysis, DeBellis is entitled to summary judgment unless Harris can identify a genuine issue of fact regarding whether DeBellis had arguable probable cause to

Trust & Investment Advisors, Inc. v. Hogsett

830 F. Supp. 463 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 8, 1993

TIA argues that neither are the defendants entitled to qualified immunity, because Count One is for declarative and injunctive relief and Dant had to have known that she was violating TIA’s clearly established rights. … TIA has failed to allege facts which, if proven, would demonstrate that Dant’s actions were objectively unreasonable or violated TIA’s clearly established rights. Dant is thus entitled to qualified immunity.