Case law

Scott v. City of Cleveland

555 F. Supp. 2d 890 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 13, 2008

State actors faced with a civil suit under § 1983 may be immune from liability for damages, but they enjoy a qualified, not absolute, immunity Harlow v. … clearly established.

Veneklase v. City of Fargo

904 F. Supp. 1038 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Feb 17, 1995

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from suit if, at the time of the challenged acts, it was not clearly established that those actions would violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would … The qualified immunity defense may still be viable even when a plaintiff establishes the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, if the defendant can demonstrate the “objective legal reasonableness” of the

Alburquerque v. Faz Alzamora

357 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Dec 9, 2004

Defendants additionally claim they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable person would have known. … of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.”

Brandon v. City of New York

705 F. Supp. 2d 261 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 30, 2010

Okst, 101 F.3d 845, 857 (2d Cir.1996) (“[P]ublic officials are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them … violated a clearly established right.”

Jamie Hamilton v. Gary T. Myers, Executive Director of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

281 F.3d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 10, 2002

Accordingly, any “objectively reasonable” action by a state officer, as assessed in the light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct at issue, will be insulated by qualified immunity. … Thus, even if a public officer has deprived the plaintiff of a federal right, qualified immunity will apply if an objectively reasonable official would not have understood, by referencing clearly established law, that his

Davis v. Carroll

390 F. Supp. 2d 415 · District Court, D. Delaware · Sep 27, 2005

Whether Defendants are shielded from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity A public official is entitled to qualified immunity if the official’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If not, the inquiry ends, and the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

Gubitosi v. Kapica

154 F.3d 30 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 19, 1998

Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 309 , 116 S.Ct. 834 , 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996)), and proceed to consider whether the qualified immunity defense is established as a matter of law. 4 Here the gravamen of Kapica's qualified immunity … As a result, his qualified immunity defense is established as a matter of law. 13 (2) Accordingly, we vacate so much of the district court's order of May 9, 1997 as denied Kapica's motion for summary judgment based on qualified

Lopez v. Youngblood

609 F. Supp. 2d 1125 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 31, 2009

Re: Court Returnees, Qualified Immunity and Eleventh Amendment Immunity 16). … Re: Court Returnees, Qualified Immunity and Eleventh Amendment Immunity 20-21).

Eaton v. Estabrook

District Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 26, 2023

By requiring the law to be clearly established to a particularized degree, qualified immunity “protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” … Relevant to the second question, “even where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was ‘

Estate of Burke v. Mahanoy City

40 F. Supp. 2d 274 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 1999

violated clearly established federal law.” … The Supreme Court has explained what it means by clearly established law for the purpose of qualified immunity: The contours of the right must be suffi.ciently clear that a reasonable official would understand what he is

Wagner v. County of Cattaraugus

866 F. Supp. 709 · District Court, W.D. New York · Oct 19, 1994

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY I also find that defendant Travis is not protected by qualified immunity. … Therefore, the first part of the qualified immunity consideration, that is, whether the police conduct here violated clearly established constitutional rights is not an issue in this case.

FTW REVOCABLE TRUST v. Young

151 P.3d 811 · Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2007

immunity because there exists no law giving Linda a clearly-established right to renew Stephen's mooring permit. … question of qualified immunity.

Zieper v. Metzinger

392 F. Supp. 2d 516 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 22, 2005

Amendment, I must consider whether the defendants have established that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … I conclude that such an inquiry would be too narrow, and conflates the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity inquiry with the “reasonable officer” prong.

JAKLIN SUZETH GOTAY & Others v. JULIANN CREEN & Others

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 21, 2025

Qualified immunity. … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 claims for damages if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

McCray v. Lee

963 F.3d 110 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 18, 2020

They argued that the Complaint failed to state a claim under the 2 Eighth Amendment; that they were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that 3 no such Eighth Amendment rights had been clearly established; … Qualified immunity shields 2 officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate 3 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person 4 would

Maldonado Maldonado v. Lausell

681 F. Supp. 111 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 22, 1988

Before the Court can reach the merits of this claim, however, we must examine whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from suit, i.e., whether, at the time of Maldonado’s discharge, “clearly established law” … At a minimum, defendants further argue, they are entitled to qualified immunity on this fourteenth amendment claim because it was not clearly established in February 1985 that Maldonado would be entitled to a pretermination

Thomas J. McDonnell v. Michael Cournia, Richard Menzel, Gary Moe, Thomas Christopher

990 F.2d 963 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 7, 1993

To determine whether an official’s conduct violates clearly established law requires a two-step inquiry. First, the plaintiff must show that the law was clearly established when the challenged conduct occurred. … In this case, then, qualified immunity shields the defendant police officers from McDonnell’s damage action if “a reasonable officer could have believed [McDonnell’s arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law

John Allen Caldwell v. Woodford County Chief Jailer, James Moore, Harry Stephen Tracy Rick Adkins Daniel E. Clark W. Keith Broughton

968 F.2d 595 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 1992

The question whether an official is protected by qualified immunity turns on “the objective legal reasonableness” of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time the action … In Russo , we granted qualified immunity to the officers and noted that the use of a taser in order to avoid a dangerous situation or the resort to even greater force did not violate clearly established law.

Groom v. Fickes

966 F. Supp. 1466 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 2, 1997

Qualified Immunity The plaintiff also contends that, in an investigative capacity, Clark is entitled only to the more general qualified immunity. … Nevertheless, qualified immunity shields prosecutors and other government officials from liability for money damages when performing discretionary functions “if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Charles F. Finsel v. Thomas Cruppenink, in His Individual and Official Capacities as Vermilion County Deputy Sheriff

326 F.3d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 21, 2003

Cruppenink filed a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity as to his entry into the motel room. … The deputy’s motion for qualified immunity was also denied. That decision is the *906 subject of this appeal.