Case law

McNamara v. City of Long Beach

249 F. Supp. 3d 684 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 21, 2017

“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 … These facts inform whether defendants violated a clearly established right of the plaintiffs. As a result, the Court cannot dismiss plaintiffs claims at this stage based on qualified immunity.

Dixon v. Wallowa County

336 F.3d 1013 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 21, 2003

If so, “the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … The individual defendants cross-appeal from the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment as to their *1021 qualified immunity on Dixon’s Fourth Amendment claim, ■ arguing that the law was not clearly established

Stein v. Ryan

662 F.3d 1114 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 18, 2011

. § 1983, the district court concluded that they were protected by qualified immunity. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (qualified immunity applies if offi- cial’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known”).

State of New Jersey v. C.C.W.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 29, 2025

However, to qualify for the OPA immunity, a defendant must also establish that the acute condition "result[ed] from the consumption or use of a [CDS]." Ibid. … The definition is comprised of three elements, all of which must be established to qualify for immunity: (1) the person must exhibit an "acute condition[,]" (2) "the acute condition must be 'resulting from the consumption

Hurst v. Finley

857 F. Supp. 1517 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 14, 1994

In other words, the question in determining if an individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity is whether the defendant could have believed his conduct was lawful in light of clearly established law and considering … Hayes, 957 F.2d 845, 848 (11th Cir.1992) (holding that an officer is entitled to qualified immunity insofar as conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable officer would have known); see also

L.C. v. Utah State Board of Education

188 F. Supp. 2d 1330 · District Court, D. Utah · Feb 28, 2002

the right was clearly established in light of the specific factual context of the case. … hearing process as she did was not clearly established at the time.

Gay Activists Alliance v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma

638 P.2d 1116 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 22, 1981

The Court added that “[a] compensatory award will be appropriate only if the school board member has acted with such an impermissible motivation or with such disregard of the student’s clearly established constitutional rights … The Regents did not act with such disregard for the established law as to deny them qualified immunity. There had been no relevant pronouncements by this Court or by the Tenth Circuit interpreting Oklahoma law.

Sanchez v. Nunemaker

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 23, 2026

and that defeat a qualified immunity defense with equal specificity.” … Clearly Established Law We next address whether the constitutional right in question was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Harmon, 16 F.4th at 1163.

Vista Community Services v. Dean

107 F.3d 840 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 19, 1997

We review de novo a district court's ruling that a government official's conduct violated clearly established law such that the official is not entitled to qualified immunity. Johnson v. … A government official may immediately appeal the denial of qualified immunity when the issue appealed concerns whether or not certain facts show a violation of "clearly established law." Mitchell v.

Joseph H. Levenstein v. Bernard Salafsky, Patricia A. Gill, and David C. Broski, in Their Individual Capacities

164 F.3d 345 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 16, 1998

Ill Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … That takes us to the second part of the immunity inquiry: whether the applicable constitutional standards were clearly established at the time in question.

Pennycuff v. McNutt

95 F. Supp. 3d 1325 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 5, 2015

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that plaintiffs 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim should be dismissed because they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “When a defendant pleads qualified immunity, the plaintiff has the heavy burden of establishing: (1) that the defendant’s actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the right violated was clearly

Chivas v. Koehler

182 Mich. App. 467 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1990

Thus, we find he would qualify under Ross for absolute immunity. … The motion can only be granted if the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could establish the claim and justify recovery.

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.

Green v. Bauvi

46 F.3d 189 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 25, 1995

Public officials enjoy a qualified immunity from suits for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Assuming that, in whatever circumstances are at issue, the inmate’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time was clearly established at the time of his confinement, the officials are entitled to qualified immunity if it

Johnson v. County of Los Angeles

340 F.3d 787 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 15, 2003

City of Bremerton, 268 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir.2001). 1 I In Saucier, the Supreme Court established a two-step evaluation of qualified immunity. … His use of force was objectively reasonable and he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Richard H. Hatch, Jr. v. Department for Children, Youth and Their Families (State of Rhode Island), Steven Brown and Mary McKee Proposed

274 F.3d 12 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 17, 2001

In Frazier , we upheld a grant of qualified immunity to social workers who had played a role in a family dispute. … In answering this question, it is important to understand the parameters of the qualified immunity defense.

KRL v. Estate of Moore

512 F.3d 1184 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 16, 2008

If yes, “the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … Although our prior decision granted Riebe qualified immunity, it denied qualified immunity for Hall.

Cotton v. Mansour

634 F. Supp. 1094 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 11, 1986

To overcome the defense of qualified immunity it must appear that the defendant official violated clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known. ... … The Harlow test for qualified immunity applies to suits against state officials under § 1983. Id. at 818 n. 30, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 n. 30.

Figueroa-Rodriguez v. Lopez-Rivera

878 F.2d 1478 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 25, 1989

Harlow, supra (government officials enjoy “qualified immunity” where the law does not “clearly” forbid their actions). … In Mendez-Palou, 813 F.2d at 1259 , this circuit said that the question in a “qualified immunity” case, such as this one, is “whether [at the time of dismissal] it was clearly established that employees in the particular

Canter v. County of Otsego

14 F. App'x 518 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 12, 2001

As the magistrate judge pointed out in his discussion of qualified immunity, the State Police defendants expressly admitted that the constitutional rights they are accused of violating were clearly established at the time … immunity[,] typically, the issue of whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established.