Case law

Prager v. LaFaver

180 F.3d 1185 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 15, 1999

LaFaver contends the law did not clearly establish that the First Amendment protected Mr. Prager’s speech. Pickering v. … We turn to the question of whether this law was clearly established when Mr. LaFaver acted against Mr. Prager.

TonyaMarie Adams v. Nathan Trimble

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 24, 2023

Trimble appeals, claiming he is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established. … As such, the evidence does not show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, and qualified immunity is appropriate here.

Ramirez v. Holmes

921 F. Supp. 204 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 1996

“Even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him … For Ramirez to defeat Holmes’s use of the qualified immunity shield, he must demonstrate that he possessed a clearly established constitutional right with respect to his claims.

Keith Edwards v. Officer J. Grubbs

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 13, 2026

Edwards to establish that qualified immunity does not apply. See Bailey, 843 F.3d at 480. … A right may be clearly established for qualified im- munity purposes in one of three ways: (1) case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional right;

La Belle v. County of St. Lawrence

85 A.D.2d 759 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 3, 1981

In addition, the case of Doe v County of Suffolk ( 494 F Supp 179, 182 ) states that the immunity under section 419 of the Social Services *761 Law is a qualified good faith immunity only. … Furthermore, it should be noted that contrary to defendants’ assertion, since the immunities are at best qualified immunities, plaintiffs did not have the burden to plead bad faith (Gomez v Toledo, 446 US 635 ).

Hofschneider v. City of Vancouver

182 F. Supp. 3d 1145 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 21, 2016

Schaffer also argues that his search and seizure of Hofschneider was conducted reasonably, and that, even if it was not, he is entitled to qualified immunity because any right he did violate was not “clearly established.” … the “right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Gonzalez v. Romanisko

744 F. Supp. 95 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 1990

The Defendant, Mastruzzo, here moves for judgment notwithstanding the verdict based on allegations of qualified immunity and insufficiency of the evidence. … The principles of qualified immunity that we have reaffirmed today require that Anderson be permitted to argue that he is entitled to summary judgment on the ground that, in light of the clearly estab *98 lished principles

Husain v. Springer

336 F. Supp. 2d 207 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 2, 2004

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … For a constitutional right to be ‘clearly established’ for purposes of determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would

Mee v. Ortega

967 F.2d 423 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 18, 1992

Accordingly, "summary judgment in favor of a defendant seeking qualified immunity is appropriate only if the constitutional standards governing the challenged conduct were not clearly established." Rex v. … Ortega on the basis of qualified immunity. "[T]he plaintiff cannot simply identify a clearly established right in the abstract and allege that the defendant has violated it." Hilliard v.

Schroeder v. McDonald

41 F.3d 1272 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 29, 1994

The qualified immunity test requires a two-part analysis: “(1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? (2) Under that law, could a reasonable officer have believed the conduct was lawful?” … Thus, defendants acted in complete disregard for clearly established prison regulations. Accordingly, defendants fail the second part of the qualified immunity test.

Gratsch v. Hamilton County

12 F. App'x 193 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 3, 2001

a given set of facts violates clearly established law.” ’ Id. … As discussed above, evaluation of a qualified immunity claim involves answering two questions: 1) did the plaintiff suffer a deprivation of his clearly established constitutional rights; and 2) did the defendant act in an

Edward Joseph X. Chapman v. George Pickett

586 F.2d 22 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 30, 1978

Strickland rule, the immunity defense would be unavailing to petitioners if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have … There can be no serious contention with the fact that the right to be free from disproportionate punishment has long been “clearly established.”

Bailey v. Board of County Commissioners of Alachua County

956 F.2d 1112 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 31, 1992

To defeat a qualified immunity defense, Bailey was required to show that the defendants violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. Mitchell v. … The district court reasoned that the law became “clearly established” on that date; thus, Caldwell and Hayes were not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

Webb v. Jackson

583 So. 2d 946 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1991

As to that section of the Complaint, Officer Jackson enjoys qualified immunity since the misconduct alleged does not fall within one of the three exceptions to qualified immunity. … Officer Jackson is protected by qualified immunity and the City of Newton by sovereign immunity on that issue.

McLenagan v. Karnes

27 F.3d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 30, 1994

Rizzo, supra, is our leading case addressing the issue of qualified immunity in the excessive force context. … Simply put, under Virginia law, sovereign immunity is not available to a defendant whose culpability extends beyond mere negligence. *1009 Sovereign immunity, like qualified immunity, is only available to public officials

Jerauld ex rel. Robinson v. Kroger

353 S.W.3d 636 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Aug 5, 2011

Thus, Kroger could also use the defense of qualified official immunity. … Clearly, his actions were of a discretionary nature. We believe the acts undertaken by Kroger were discretionary in nature and entitled him to qualified official immunity.

Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society

45 Cal. App. 4th 163 · California Court of Appeal · May 8, 1996

would violate a clearly established constitutional *178 or statutory right. … Further, an officer’s unreasonable ignorance that he has violated a clearly established right does not save his claim of qualified immunity. (Gilker v. Baker (9th Cir. 1978) 576 F.2d 245, 247 ; Coleman v.

James McKinney v. Richland County Sheriff's Department Roy Livingston, Richland County Sheriff Department Sheriff of Richland County

431 F.3d 415 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 12, 2005

Livingston moved for summary judgment below on grounds of qualified immunity, but that motion was denied. … Livingston moved for summary judgment, claiming that he was entitled to qualified immunity.

Mason v. Village of Babylon, New York

124 F. Supp. 2d 807 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 20, 2000

clearly established constitutional rights. … At the very least, McManus is clearly entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest claim. McManus was informed of an outstanding warrant and acted thereupon.

Fabrikant v. French

328 F. Supp. 2d 303 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 30, 2004

The qualified immunity doctrine insulates a governmental official performing discretionary functions from liability so long as his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”