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

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."

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.

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 .

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Lance v. Board of County Commissioners

985 F.3d 787 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 19, 2021

Violation of a Clearly Established Right Although Mr. … lack of a clearly established right.

Allen v. Sakai

48 F.3d 1082 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 1, 1995

established constitutional rights, defeating defendants' claims to qualified immunity. … established constitutional rights, defeating defendants' claims to qualified immunity.

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.

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

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.

Berman Enterprises, Inc. v. Jorling

3 F.3d 602 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 24, 1993

When Jorling and Marsh acted, the law governing their conduct was not “clearly established”; therefore, both defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from the claims against them in their individual capacities. … Marsh is more clearly entitled to qualified immunity than Jorling, for his actions followed a more clearly defined statutory path.

Munn-Goins v. Board of Trustees of Bladen Community College

658 F. Supp. 2d 713 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 17, 2009

Page contend that qualified immunity bars plaintiffs section 1983 claim for money damages. … , 119 S.Ct. 1692 . *725 In most cases, the qualified immunity analysis does not require factual findings, because the inquiry is a “purely legal one: whether the facts alleged ... support a claim of violation of clearly

Nassau County Employee "L" v. County of Nassau

345 F. Supp. 2d 293 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 29, 2004

“The *301 qualified immunity doctrine shields ‘government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “In determining whether a particular legal principle was ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity,” the Second Circuit has considered three factors: “whether the right was defined with reasonable specificity

Mowbray v. Kozlowski

724 F. Supp. 404 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Oct 25, 1989

Under Harlow , state officials are protected by qualified immunity if the conduct complained of by the plaintiffs "did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should … Qualified immunity is " immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like absolute immunity it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial."