Case law

Colin A. Edwards v. Bryan C. Shanley

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 12, 2012

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages for torts committed while performing discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional … As a result, Officer Shanley cannot claim qualified immunity on the grounds that he did not know he was violating Edwards’s constitutional rights.5 In sum, we hold that clearly established federal law prohibits

Chayo v. Kaladjian

844 F. Supp. 163 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 9, 1994

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity shields government officials whose “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” Harlow v. … Accord Harlow, 457 U.S. at 819 , 102 S.Ct. at 2739 (stating that test for qualified immunity “focuses on the objective legal reasonableness of an official’s acts” in light of “clearly established” legal rules); Ying Jing

McKinney v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government

651 F. App'x 449 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 9, 2016

The resolution of the officers’ state-law qualified-official-immunity claims depends on the same issues of fact as their federal qualified-immunity claims. … The district court also held that since the officers may have violated McKinney’s clearly established constitutional rights, the doctrine of qualified official immunity did not shield the officers from liability against the

Harhay v. Town of Ellington Board of Education

323 F.3d 206 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 21, 2003

Public officials enjoy qualified immunity from suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for acts undertaken in their official capacity, unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which an objectively … Defendants may benefit from qualified immunity if plaintiff is unable to establish any of these three *212 steps.

Duke v. Hamil

997 F. Supp. 2d 1291 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Feb 4, 2014

Did Defendant Hamil Violate a Clearly Established Constitutional Right? … Even if the Court concluded that Hamil did violate Plaintiffs First Amend-, ment rights, Hamil would still be entitled to qualified immunity because that right was not clearly established.

Harrell v. State

170 Wash. App. 386 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 28, 2012

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 . … and Richards enjoyed qualified immunity.

Armendariz v. Penman

75 F.3d 1311 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 7, 1996

immunity because their actions did not violate any clearly established federal constitutional or statutory rights. … The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Daniel Houlihan v. City of Chicago

871 F.3d 540 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 8, 2017

To thwart qualified immunity, the plaintiffs had to prove two things: “first, that the facts alleged describe a vi- olation of a protected right; and second, that this right was clearly established at the time of the defendant's … Cook County Sheriff’s Office—decided four years after the police department reassigned them—the Northern Dis- trict of Illinois granted qualified immunity after concluding that the law did not clearly establish that the security-special

Courtney Saunders v. Kyle Thies

38 F.4th 701 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 29, 2022

The district court resolved the officers’ entitlement to qualified immunity on the clearly established prong, concluding that it was not clearly established that the -12- failure … The district court thus resolved this claim on the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis rather than the constitutional violation prong.

Norfleet v. ARK. DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES

796 F. Supp. 1194 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 1, 1992

Qualified immunity from liability for civil damages exists where the defendants' actions do not violate "clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … The Court, however, does not need to decide this question because it finds that the law in this area is not clearly established and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

M.W. v. Nassau County

2025 NY Slip Op 05550 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 8, 2025

The County moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, contending, inter alia, that it was entitled to governmental function immunity and qualified immunity pursuant to Social Services … Contrary to the County's contention, it "was not entitled to qualified immunity pursuant to Social Services Law § 419, as qualified immunity does not bar recovery for the negligent supervision of children in foster care"

Hegwood v. City of Eau Claire

668 F. Supp. 2d 1156 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Nov 10, 2009

“cannot clearly establish a constitutional violation.”). … Because plaintiffs have failed to show that it was “clearly established” that applying Wisconsin’s disorderly house statute would *1168 be unconstitutional, I conclude that the individual defendants have qualified immunity

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.

Love v. Harlem Irrigation District

245 Mont. 443 · Montana Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1990

The Irrigation District is clearly a “governmental entity” within the meaning of § 2-9-111, MCA. … Harlem Irrigation District is clearly a governmental entity immune from suit under these definitions. *447 Under § 2-9-111(3), MCA, the commissioners individually are immune as members of a legislative body who are immune

State v. Keller-Bee

224 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 6, 2015

As will be discussed in detail infra, Maryland Courts have clearly established that a judge is immune from tort liability for judicial acts. … The Court continued: The determination of [w]hether a function qualifies for absolute immunity is made objectively and not subjectively.

Zavatsky v. Anderson

130 F. Supp. 2d 349 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 12, 2001

If such a deprivation has occurred, a defendant may establish a qualified immunity defense if “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to … established constitutional right for the purpose of the court’s qualified immunity analysis.

Morales v. Busbee

972 F. Supp. 254 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 20, 1997

The qualified immunity doctrine provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The Third Circuit has recently made clear that “to defeat qualified immunity it is not sufficient that the right at issue be clearly established as a general matter.

Norfleet v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

796 F. Supp. 1194 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 1, 1992

Qualified immunity from liability for civil damages exists where the defendants’ actions do not violate “clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The Court, however, does not need to decide this question because it finds that the law in this area is not clearly established and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Students for Life USA v. Waldrop

90 F. Supp. 3d 1265 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Feb 4, 2015

Qualified Immunity. … Certainly Bloedom does not clearly establish for purposes of qualified immunity analysis the proposition for which the plaintiff contends.

Cole v. Sharp

898 F. Supp. 799 · District Court, D. Kansas · Aug 11, 1995

The defendants have also raised qualified immunity as a defense. … 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