Case law

Wetmore v. Gardner

735 F. Supp. 974 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 6, 1990

Qualified Immunity The defendants next contend that they are entitled to a verdict in their favor or a new trial based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. … . *983 Because it was clearly established law that the policy could be found constitutional only by a showing of legitimate penological need, the policymaker defendants were entitled to qualified immunity only if it was shown

Maxcie Thomas v. Houston Talley

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 25, 2001

Qualified immunity "shield[s] [government officials] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … immunity ... typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was 'clearly established' " (emphasis in original).

Gregorich v. Lund

54 F.3d 410 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 9, 1995

a “clearly established” constitutional right “of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Gregorich responds *414 that this right was clearly established. We review the district court’s decision to deny Justice Lund qualified immunity de novo. Bakalis, 35 F.3d at 322 . 2.

Chavez v. Illinois State Police

27 F. Supp. 2d 1053 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 5, 1998

To overcome a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must clear two separate hurdles. The plaintiff must show, first, that the right is, in fact, a clearly established right, Apostol v. … In the interests of completeness, the court will consider the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis and will assume, arguendo, that the plaintiffs have established that “freedom of movement” is a clearly established

Sova v. City of Mt. Pleasant

142 F.3d 898 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 24, 1998

LaLone and Officer Shell are entitled to qualified immunity. Police officers are afforded qualified immunity for their discretionary functions, Pierson v. … "Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery."

Parsons v. Ann Arbor, City of

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 2, 2021

Qualified immunity "'shield[s]' public officials from money-damages liability if 'their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … "To survive the motion to dismiss on qualified-immunity grounds, [P]laintiff must allege facts that plausibly mak[e] out a claim that the defendant's conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established

Lamle v. Eads

134 F.4th 562 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 9, 2025

Eads urged dismissal based on qualified immunity. 2 To avoid dismissal, the applicants needed to allege facts that would plausibly show the violation of a clearly established right. Robbins v. Okla. ex rel. … Given the lack of a clearly established constitutional violation, Ms. Eads was entitled to qualified immunity.

Ortega v. Moran

District Court, D. Connecticut · Nov 21, 2022

Moran further asserts a defense of qualified immunity. … In order for a plaintiff to overcome a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that the defendant violated a right of the plaintiff that was clearly established law at the time of the conduct in question.

Harris Ex Rel. the Estate of Jkhary Craft v. Lasseigne

602 F. App'x 218 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 2015

Lasseigne is entitled to qualified immunity if the court determines that his actions in shooting Craft “did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … It was clearly established at the time of the shooting that an officer violates the Fourth Amendment if he shoots a suspect without “probable cause to believe that the No. 14-1033 Harris v.

Schneider v. Simonini

314 N.J. Super. 583 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 4, 1998

The trial judge dismissed the case against Post based on qualified immunity. … The test is whether the conduct involved was objectively reasonable in the light of clearly established law. Harlow, supra, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d at 410 .

Foremost Insurance Co. v. Public Service Commission

985 S.W.2d 793 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 1998

Public officials are provided qualified immunity for their official acts “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Respondent argues that even if the facts alleged are true, Respondent did not violate any clearly established right of Appellant.

Ellison v. Hobbs

334 F. Supp. 3d 1328 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 25, 2018

"In evaluating a government actor's entitlement to qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has developed an objective-reasonableness test wherein 'the official's actions must be evaluated against "clearly established law," … Second, we determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of alleged conduct.

Stack v. Killian

96 F.3d 159 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 12, 1996

Officials who perform discretionary functions are generally entitled to qualified immunity from individual liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The question of 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 it was taken

Tina Ewell v. Eric Toney

853 F.3d 911 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 10, 2017

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … To defeat the qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the defend- ant violated a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time so that it would have been clear to a reasonable

Conklin v. Cohen

287 So. 2d 56 · Supreme Court of Florida · Dec 5, 1973

Furthermore, it is clear that the owners did not qualify as "contractors" or "statutory employers," within the foregoing definitions thereof. … [owner's] negligence," clearly stated a cause of action against the owners, and, as clearly, were sufficient to withstand the owners' Motion to Dismiss. II.

Barnes v. County of Placer

654 F. Supp. 2d 1066 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 30, 2009

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is a defense to lawsuits against governmental officials arising out of the performance of their duties. … without first obtaining a warrant and keep them in custody until the Placer County Juvenile Court ordered their release did not violate clearly established law.

Hazel L. Wilson v. Steve Northcutt, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of Malvern, Arkansas, City of Malvern, Arkansas

441 F.3d 586 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 21, 2006

Qualified immunity protects government officials from the costs of trial and the burdens of broad discovery unless their discretionary acts violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Harlow v. … Northcutt is entitled to qualified immunity. C. Towing the Café Fish.

Matthew Grab v. Columbia Borough

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 21, 2023

Grab and Grab’s “right not to be handcuffed was clearly established.” … But the District Court did not resolve the first step in the qualified immunity analysis, concluding instead that the right was not “clearly established.” See Pearson v.

Slough v. Telb

644 F. Supp. 2d 978 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 14, 2009

Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit for civil damages so long as their- conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … No clearly established constitutional right was violated by Defendants entry into Plaintiffs home. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in entering Plaintiffs home. b.

PTI, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc.

100 F. Supp. 2d 1179 · District Court, C.D. California · May 25, 2000

Under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, the private defendants are clearly immune for their activities involved with the negotiation, execution, and attempts to implement the MSA, the Qualifying Statute, and the Model Act. … Moreover, no amount of colorful pleading can obscure the fact that plaintiffs’ challenge is, in fact, to the MSA, the Qualifying Statute and the Model Act, all of which are clearly immunized, as are the actions incidental