Case law

Thomas v. Culberg

741 F. Supp. 77 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 11, 1990

Nonetheless, the complaint against Thomas must be dismissed because Culbert is entitled to qualified immunity. … ” lacking, the officer will be shielded by qualified immunity from civil liability.

James Dean v. County of Gage

807 F.3d 931 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 7, 2015

It also denied the officers’ renewed motion for qualified immunity, which they cross-appeal. II. The officers claim they are entitled to qualified immunity. … To overcome qualified immunity, plaintiffs must demonstrate both that “(1) there was a deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.”

Harvey Pelfrey v. The Estate of Steven Dewey McDowell, by and Through Brenda Roberts, as Administratrix

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · May 29, 2026

Mattingly defended in part based on qualified official immunity. … As such, Mattingly was not entitled to qualified official immunity.

Wyche v. City of Franklinton

837 F. Supp. 137 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 5, 1993

Caldwell is entitled to qualified immunity if he can establish that, in light of the clearly established principles governing the use of force to effect an arrest, he could, as a matter of law, reasonably have believed that … In Slattery , the Fourth Circuit elaborated upon the scope of qualified immunity: The right of the plaintiff must be established so clearly that a reasonable official would know what he is doing violates that right.

Stokes v. City of Chicago

744 F. Supp. 183 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 24, 1990

The standard for granting qualified immunity is well-established. … It is clearly established that the fourth amendment requires truthful factual showing sufficient to constitute probable cause. Franks v.

Schwab v. Wood

767 F. Supp. 574 · District Court, D. Delaware · Jun 12, 1991

Qualified Immunity A. … Standard for Qualified Immunity State officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which

City of Brooksville v. Warner

533 S.W.3d 688 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Mar 17, 2017

Because the safe driving of a police vehicle is a ministerial act, Hause is not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs negligent driving claim. … For this reason, and to ensure that governmental officials will exercise discretion when needed, our law allows qualified immunity from suit on the performance of discretionary acts.

Bertolis v. Community Unit School District No. 7

283 Ill. App. 3d 874 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 3, 1996

On July 20, 1994, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, citing as one ground for dismissal section 8—101 of the Tort Immunity Act, which establishes a one-year limitation period for actions commenced against local public … Although the Tort Immunity Act clearly establishes a one-year limitation period for actions filed against local public entities, in addition to following the statute of limitations applicable to an action, we must also follow

Cassels v. Stalder

342 F. Supp. 2d 555 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Oct 20, 2004

First, it functions as a defense to liability when the actions allegedly taken by officials did not violate clearly established law. 32 If the law was not clearly established when officials acted, qualified immunity bars … the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; and, (2) if so, whether the defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in the light of the clearly established law at the time of

Lamb v. Bloom

159 Vt. 633 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jan 12, 1993

White, 155 Vt. 621 , 587 A.2d 975 (1991), which held that we *634 have collateral order jurisdiction over an appeal of a denial of summary judgment rejecting a claim of qualified immunity. … Murray holds that good faith exists “where an official’s acts did not violate clearly established rights of which the official reasonably should have known.” 155 Vt. at 630 , 587 A.2d at 980 .

Reid v. Simmons

163 F. Supp. 2d 81 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 30, 2001

Qualified Immunity. … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability if the challenged “ ‘conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Mutter v. Sanders

611 F. Supp. 2d 837 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · May 4, 2009

immunity because their alleged conduct was not clearly established to be violative of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. … Qualified immunity (1) The Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to the federal claims included in Count 1 of the complaint because it was not clearly established that Sanders violated the Plaintiffs

Les Eckert and Aberdeen Insurance Services, Inc. v. Jose Montemayor, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of Insurance for the State of Texas and Texas Department of Insurance

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Mar 31, 2005

If we find an alleged violation of a constitutional right, we then consider if the right was “clearly established.” Id . … was “clearly established.”

Krish Singh v. City of Phoenix

124 F.4th 746 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 26, 2024

DISCUSSION “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 … Qualified Immunity The district court held, and we agree, that Plaintiff has established a plausible, even though not conclusive, constitutional violation at step one of the qualified-immunity analysis.

Madsen v. Borthick

658 P.2d 627 · Utah Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1983

We are unwilling to read this artificial distinction into the Governmental Immunity Act in the absence of a clearly expressed legislative purpose to that effect. We find none. … of governmental immunity established in the Governmental Immunity Act. 10 The 1978 amendment to the Governmental Immunity Act, in § 63-30-4, establishes a new statutory standard for official immunity.

Knott County Board of Education v. Patton

415 S.W.3d 51 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Dec 19, 2013

We also conclude that the individual Appellants were engaged in the performance of discretionary duties covered by the qualified official immunity doctrine. … of qualified official immunity.

Blouin v. Spitzer

356 F.3d 348 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 2, 2004

The court did, however, determine that they were entitled to qualified immunity, because "plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of a clearly established right. … Qualified Immunity 34 We now consider qualified immunity, which shields a government official acting in an official capacity from suit for damages under § 1983 unless the official "violated clearly established rights of which

Huron Valley Hospital, Inc. v. City Of Pontiac

792 F.2d 563 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 30, 1986

This is not a simple conclusion that the law is clearly established as is necessary with qualified immunity. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), test for applying qualified immunity requires a finding that the official conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Vines v. Howard

676 F. Supp. 608 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1987

To be protected by qualified immunity, an official must establish that he acted in good faith, without intending to violate any of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. … The constitutional right at issue must be clearly established. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d at 410 .

Porterfield v. Lott

156 F.3d 563 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 22, 1998

not violate clearly established rights of which a reason- able person would have known." … Officials lose the protection of the immunity if they vio- late a constitutional or statutory right of the plaintiff and the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation such that an objectively reasonable