Case law

Jag v. City of Warren

944 F. Supp. 606 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 5, 1996

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Therefore, when a defendant moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, as is the case here, the plaintiff must: 1) identify a clearly established right alleged to have been violated; and 2) establish that a reasonable

Hirpassa v. Albert

648 F. Supp. 2d 148 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 31, 2009

. *151 By definition, qualified immunity is not absolute. … However, “[a] plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official’s qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time

Darius Gittens v. Superintendent Eugene S. Lefevre, Review Officer Lt. Kavanaugh, Correction Officer J. Gillen, Sergeant Goodrich

891 F.2d 38 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 29, 1989

Qualified Immunity Gittens’ claim was properly dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. … Accordingly, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

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.

Lawson v. Hilderbrand

88 F. Supp. 3d 84 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 23, 2015

That is because the doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The officers are protected by qualified immunity against this First Amendment claim unless the right to record them was clearly established at the time of the incident, i.e., that “the right’s contours were sufficiently definite

Rhodes v. Torres

901 S.W.2d 794 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Jun 22, 1995

The test under federal immunity law for such claims is as follows: “[W]e look to whether a reasonable official could have believed his or her conduct to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information possessed … Rhodes was lawful in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed at the time he filed the motion to revoke her probation.

Glover v. Mabrey

384 F. App'x 763 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 28, 2010

It determined the ODOT defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights is a clearly established constitutional violation. … As the cases above indicate, freedom from retaliation for protected activity was clearly established when the defendants acted and they are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Anilao v. Spota

27 F.4th 855 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 9, 2022

"Qualified immunity protects a public official from liability for conduct that 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123, 130 (2d Cir. 1997) (denying qualified immunity to police officers where a reasonable jury could find they "violated the plaintiffs' clearly established constitutional rights by conspiring to

Salazar v. Bjork

85 N.M. 94 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 1973

However, we do believe that the facts of this case give rise to a qualified immunity. … Ares, 29 N.M. 418 , 223 P. 766 (1924) have used the term “qualified privilege” where we have used the words “qualified immunity”.

Rodgers v. Hawley

14 F. App'x 403 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 22, 2001

Thus, assuming Kedzierzawski and Kirkwood violated Irvin’s right to be free from retaliation for filing grievances, the question for purposes of qualified immunity is whether this violation involved a “clearly established … Because they did not violate constitutional rights that were clearly established at the time of their actions, Kedzierzawski and Kirkwood are entitled to qualified immunity on Irvin’s retaliation claim. 6 IV For the reasons

Pinder v. Johnson

54 F.3d 1169 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 30, 1995

Where the law is clearly established, and where no reasonable officer could believe he was acting in accordance with it, qualified immunity will not attach. … The Supreme Court recognized, however, that a state official could never assert the defense of qualified immunity if the test of "clearly established law" were applied at that level of generality.

Ramirez v. Granado

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 30, 2025

’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.’” … ) “whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation.”

Carey v. Maloney

480 F. Supp. 2d 548 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 30, 2007

Qualified immunity is warranted if either (1) the official’s actions did not violate clearly established law, or (2) even if the actions violated a clearly established law, the official was objectively reasonable in believing … Qualified Immunity as to Fox and Maloney As described above, “[t]he right of an individual not to be subjected to excessive force has long been clearly established.” Calamia v.

Merrill v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources

219 W. Va. 151 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 12, 2006

Va.Code, 29-12A-1, et seq., is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known. … DHHR was entitled to qualified immunity because Appellants had failed to adduce even a scintilla of evidence that DHHR had violated any clearly established law.

Howell v. Smith

853 F.3d 892 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 10, 2017

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff demonstrates that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and that the right was “clearly established” at the … established law.”

Violano v. Fernandez

88 Conn. App. 1 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Mar 15, 2005

any of the exceptions applicable to qualified governmental immunity for discretionary acts. … None of the exceptions to qualified governmental immunity apply to the facts alleged.

Magro v. City of Vineland

148 N.J. Super. 34 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 9, 1977

The undisputed facts establish that the nature of the lands herein as rural, undeveloped and unimproved, and the use thereof by plaintiff for swimming qualify to bring into play the immunity granted by the statute, as construed … The statute grants immunity to a landowner under the facts herein — an immunity equally available to a public entity and a private individual or corporation. Affirmed.

Charles Kaminski v. Brad Coulter

865 F.3d 339 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2017

were not “clearly established” at the time that the violation occurred. … With respect to Clinton’s qualified-immunity defense, the district court held that the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights “were clearly established” and that thus qualified immunity was unavailable.

Pine v. Synkonis

79 Pa. Commw. 479 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 1984

There was also evidence that damaged or missing guardrail had been left unrepaired for an extended period of time. 3 Qualified immunity Initially we must determine whether the Appellants are protected by the qualified immunity … In DuBree , the Court 4 analyzed prior law governing official immunity and established considerations for determining whether an official should be immune. These can be summarized as follows: 1.

Billado v. Parry

937 F. Supp. 337 · District Court, D. Vermont · Jul 18, 1996

The deputies do not dispute that the law governing their § 1983 duties was clearly established on March 21, 1992. … Sheriff Manosh claims that he cannot be held liable for the negligent actions of his deputies because they are protected by qualified immunity, and he is protected by official immunity.