Case law

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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"

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.

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.”

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

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

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.”

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.

Lyons v. CITY OF XENIA. OH

258 F. Supp. 2d 761 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 22, 2003

While it is clearly established that one has the right to be free from arrest not supported by probable cause, the more narrowly focused question for purposes of qualified immunity is whether Officer Keith reasonably could … With respect to Officer Foubert, evidence of excessively forceful handcuffing precludes protection by qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage of litigation, as the right to be free from such is clearly established

in Re: Texas Department of Transportation

510 S.W.3d 701 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Oct 14, 2016

While the motion did not expressly refer to sovereign immunity, it asserted that Flores could not establish a prima facie case of age discrimination because TxDOT filled the vacant position with an older employee. … To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, the plaintiff in a true replacement case must show that he or she was (1) a member of a protected class; (2) qualified

Brian Thomas Hoyland v. Shawn McMenomy

869 F.3d 644 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 28, 2017

established law.” … ... right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

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

Tzilianos v. New York City Transit Authority

91 A.D.3d 435 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 5, 2012

Defendant failed to establish either that compliance with its six-inch gap standard proves that it was not negligent or that it is entitled to qualified immunity In support of its argument that it is entitled to qualified … In Jackson , this Court enunciated that, “[i]n order to establish entitlement to qualified immunity, the defendant must demonstrate that a public planning body considered and passed upon the same question of risk as would

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.

Leang v. Jersey City Board of Education

198 N.J. 557 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 16, 2009

The panel concluded that their actions fell outside the protections of qualified immunity because they violated plaintiffs clearly established Fourteenth Amendment rights to liberty and due process. See Saucier v. … We begin with a brief overview of the TCA and the qualified immunity it confers.

Duncan v. Goedeke & Cleasey

837 F. Supp. 846 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 22, 1993

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, federal officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In order to overcome a defendant official’s qualified immunity from Bivens suits, a plaintiff claiming violation of constitutional rights must first show that these rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct