Case law

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.

Batiste v. City of Beaumont

421 F. Supp. 2d 969 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Nov 10, 2005

As the doctrine exists today, qualified immunity shields state officials from personal suits for acts in their official capacity insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person … The concept of conduct objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law is difficult to grasp.

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

Dennis Wiertella v. Lake Cnty., Ohio

141 F.4th 775 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 24, 2025

Qualified immunity To overcome Snow’s and Watson’s qualified-immunity defense, the Estate must establish (1) that Snow and Watson violated Wiertella’s constitutional rights, and (2) that the governing caselaw “clearly … Sheehan, 575 U.S. 600, 613 (2015) (“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”).

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.

Webb v. Jessamine County Fiscal Court

802 F. Supp. 2d 870 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Aug 5, 2011

To avoid summary judgment based on an assertion of qualified immunity, Plaintiff must first show “a violation of a constitutional right” and that the violated right “was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’ … Summary judgment is, thus, precluded on the basis of qualified immunity for Teaven so long as the violated right “was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.” Pearson v.

Coones v. Board of County Commissioners

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 21, 2026

Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282, 1294 (10th Cir. 2022) (“[G]eneral statements of the law can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes if they apply with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question.” … In particular, we focused in Cox on the plaintiff’s failure to adequately brief the question of clearly established law in response to the defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity. See id. at 1245–46.

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.

Marin v. Gonzales, et al.

2005 DNH 167 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Dec 19, 2005

Qualified Immunity. … Qualified immunity protects "government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Parks v. Pomeroy

387 F.3d 949 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 20, 2004

plaintiff can establish a constitutional violation, he is entitled to qualified immunity. … This "clearly established" standard must be met in order to permit the denial of qualified immunity. For these inquiries, we conduct a de novo review. See, e.g., Tuggle v.

Limones v. School District of Lee County

111 So. 3d 901 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 6, 2013

“It is clearly established that one who undertakes to act, even when under no obligation to do so, thereby becomes obligated to act with reasonable care.” Union Park Mem’l Chapel v. Hutt, 670 So.2d 64, 66-67 (Fla.1996). … as establishing a civil liability.”

Willoughby v. Luster

717 F. Supp. 1439 · District Court, D. Nevada · May 2, 1989

On the basis of these affidavits, they argue that they are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. … This finding, however, does not preclude defendants from renewing their claim of qualified immunity after the factual circumstances surrounding Willoughby’s disciplinary hearing have been more fully established.

Willis v. Arp

165 F. Supp. 3d 1357 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Feb 29, 2016

Officials seeking qualified immunity must first establish that they were acting within their discretionary authority when the alleged constitutional violation occurred. Lewis v. City of W. … Second, Plaintiff must show that “the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 (quoting Saucier v.

Moore v. Lightfoot

286 F. App'x 844 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 27, 2008

Under the second prong of the qualified immunity test, however, we find that Guyton’s actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. Guyton took measures to protect Moore from danger. … Guyton is, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Opalenik v. LaBrie

945 F. Supp. 2d 168 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 22, 2013

As Magistrate Judge Judith Dein explained: Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

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"

Sarah Wilson v. Eric Gregory

3 F. 4th 844 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 2021

But in this case, our federal qualified immunity analysis turns on the “clearly established” prong. … because Ohio statutory immunity does not turn on whether a particular right was clearly established.

McCabe v. MacAulay

545 F. Supp. 2d 857 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Apr 11, 2008

thus not clearly established. 6 The *863 court denied the remainder of Special Agent Macaulay’s First Motion for Summary Judgment with leave to refile on December 1, 2006 — after the parties had an opportunity to conduct … qualified-immunity discovery.

Helms v. Rafter

853 F. Supp. 897 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 14, 1994

Qualified Immunity Public officials are free from liability for monetary damages if they can plead and prove that their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … If it is undisputed that the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time, the defendant asserting a qualified immunity defense may still be immune from damages for violation of that right if, under the circumstances

Ippolito v. Meisel

958 F. Supp. 155 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 10, 1997

Since plaintiff asked for a declaration that Sutcliffe violated “clearly established laws,” however, and this is the same standard used to determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, see Wachtler, 35 F … .3d at 80 , and we have found that Officer Sutcliffe is entitled to such immunity, it follows that he cannot have violated “clearly established laws.”