Case law

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.

Carmen Leverette v. Margaret Bell, in Her Individual Capacity, and South Carolina Department of Corrections

247 F.3d 160 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 13, 2001

Allen instructs that “an official may claim qualified immunity as long as his actions are not clearly established to be beyond the boundaries of his discretionary authority.” Id. at 593 . … Layne qualified immunity analysis — that is, examining whether the law was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. See supra note 4.

Pintar v. Houck

690 Utah Adv. Rep. 45 · Court of Appeals of Utah · Sep 1, 2011

"The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials 'from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established . constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … was clearly established at the time 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.

Meredith v. Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

177 F.3d 1042 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 4, 1999

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (restricting qualified immunity protection to actions where official conduct did not violate a clearly established legal right), such immunity does not extend to a suit seeking equitable … of a clearly established right, the lexical priority of the inquiries are identical.

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

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.

Johnson v. District of Columbia

67 F. Supp. 3d 157 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 10, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from suit for civil damages unless a plaintiff shows that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and that the right was clearly established … If there is a constitutional violation, the second question is: Whether the right violated was “clearly established?” Id.

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.

Matthew Schantz v. Benny Deloach

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 26, 2021

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “completely protects government offi- cials performing discretionary functions from suit in their individ- ual capacities unless their conduct violates clearly established USCA11 … As discussed below, we agree with the district court’s deci- sion to dispose of Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim on the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Hilchey v. City of Haverhill

537 F. Supp. 2d 255 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 1, 2008

Before asking the second question, however, the issue of qualified immunity must be addressed. D. Qualified Immunity 1. … Second, the Court must determine whether the right was “clearly established at the time of the alleged violation”. Abrew-Guzman, 241 F.3d at 73 .

McCoy v. City of Columbia

929 F. Supp. 2d 541 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Mar 11, 2013

On appeal, the officers argued that, under Reichle , the passenger’s First Amendment rights were not clearly established and they were entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 391-92. … In the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the court asks whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of McCoy’s arrest. See Pear *562 son, 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 .

Yoak v. Marshall University Board of Governors

223 W. Va. 55 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 9, 2008

The appellees contend that the circuit court properly found that qualified immunity is applicable to the instant ease. … Therefore, unless there is a bona fide dispute as to the foundational or historical facts that underlie the immunity determination, the ultimate questions of statutory or qualified immunity are ripe for summary disposition

Lisa Bukowski v. City of Akron, Patrick Summers and John Urbank, Lisa Bukowski v. City of Akron, Patrick Summers

326 F.3d 702 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 16, 2003

As governmental officials acting within the scope of their duty, Urbank and Summers can claim qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense shielding governmental officials from liability as long as their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Roes ex rel. Bazerman v. Florida Department of Children & Family Services

176 F. Supp. 2d 1310 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 24, 2001

of qualified immunity. … Simply put, “If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.”