Case law

Barron v. Public Health Trust of Dade County

22 F. Supp. 2d 1368 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 21, 1998

Miller, 57 F.3d 986, 991-93 (11th Cir.1995) (reversing district court’s denial of qualified immunity to defendants on plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims because it was not clearly established that transferring employees, … entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

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

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.

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).

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

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 ‘

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.”

Estate of Decedent Lolomania Soakai v. Abdelaziz

137 F.4th 969 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 16, 2025

Because the law was clearly established before the date of the car chase that defendants’ conduct was unconstitutional, defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. … While creative, this doesn’t prove clearly established law. We should have granted qualified immunity to the Officers on this new substantive due process claim.

Coffin v. Brandau

614 F.3d 1240 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 24, 2010

the Deputies were entitled to qualified immunity.9 On August 7, 2007, the Coffins lodged this appeal challenging the district court’s holding that no clearly established law provided fair warning to the Deputies … Coffin made clear her intention to shut the garage door.15 Therefore, we conclude that their “conduct was not so clearly established as to justify stripping [them] of qualified immunity.”

Mendoza v. United States Immigration & Customs Enforcement

849 F.3d 408 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 21, 2017

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are generally immune from civil liability so long as "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity, we must ask (1) whether the official's action violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether the violated right was clearly established.

Trey Sims v. Kenneth Labowitz

877 F.3d 171 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 5, 2017

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or other rights that a reasonable officer would have … clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Maney v. Fealy

69 F. Supp. 3d 553 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 17, 2014

In determining whether a governmental official is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must decide “whether a constitutional violation occurred and ... whether the right violated was clearly established.” … Instead, the Fourth Circuit rested its finding for the officer on the basis, of the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, finding that the officer did not violate clearly established law. Id. at 359-60 .