Case law

Dearden v. City of Detroit

403 Mich. 257 · Michigan Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1978

The Court reached this conclusion after noting the statutory power of the commission to regulate all public utilities was qualified by the phrase, "except as otherwise restricted by law”. … .; MSA 28.2271, et seq., the Legislature intended to grant the Department of Corrections immunity from local zoning ordinances when establishing state penal institutions.

Danahy v. Buscaglia

134 F.3d 1185 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 27, 1998

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages if the challenged action “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … concluded the jury might find, the immunity defense is established as a matter of law because those facts show ... that it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his action did not violate clearly established

Huemmer v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, ETC.

474 F. Supp. 704 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 9, 1979

The immunity established under Tenney was absolute, and Justice Powell, writing for the Court in Imbler , which established absolute immunity under section 1983 for a state prosecuting officer, characterized its scope as … Strickland rule, the immunity defense would be unavailing to petitioners if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have

Woods v. Aldworth

561 F. Supp. 891 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 4, 1983

Aldworth does not contend that the constitutional rights at issue here were not clearly established during the period in question. Instead, relying on Procunier v. … When Procunier was decided, the standard for qualified immunity included both a subjective and an objective component.

Bollinger v. Oregon

172 F. App'x 770 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 28, 2006

Under the law of the case doctrine in our circuit, subsequent proceedings should follow the law of the case established in a previous appellate decision unless: “(1) the decision is clearly erroneous and its enforcement would … Since, in the posture presented to us, this qualified immunity question is a purely legal one, and Bollinger I held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity, that holding controls this appeal as law of

Flores v. Danfelser

127 N.M. 571 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 1999

Board of County Comm’rs, 1998-NMCA-090, ¶ 22 , 125 N.M. 445 , 963 P.2d 522 . {23} We further note that qualified immunity “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” … Qualified immunity may be “effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Id.

Black v. Colunga

656 F. Supp. 2d 625 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Aug 28, 2009

With respect to the first step in the qualified immunity analysis, the Plaintiff argued that the Defendants violated his clearly established constitutional rights by failing to protect him from attack. … Majette was reasonable and clearly established law did not indicate that it was objectively unreasonable, thus she is entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Ramos v. Hillsborough County

District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 21, 1997

if the challenged “‘conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Pinal County v. Cooper

238 Ariz. 346 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Oct 20, 2015

Qualified immunity is unavail *350 able if the official “knew or should have known that he was acting in violation of established law or acted in reckless disregard of whether his activities would deprive another person of … “Thus, in a defamation ease, qualified immunity will protect a public official if the facts establish that a reasonable person, with the information available to the official, ‘could have formed a reasonable belief that the

Regalado v. City of Chicago

40 F. Supp. 2d 1009 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 2, 1999

Finally, Officers contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established right possessed by Regalado. … To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, Regalado must show that the officials violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” (Harlow v.

Monteria Najuda Robinson v. William Sauls

46 F.4th 1332 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 30, 2022

To receive qualified immunity, an official “must establish that he or she acted within the scope of discretionary authority when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred.” Hardigree v. … Robinson’s clearly established rights. A right is clearly established when it is “suffi- ciently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” Mullenix v.

Alexander v. University Of North Florida

39 F.3d 290 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 2, 1994

PER CURIAM: 1 Principles of qualified immunity control this case. … But, nothing in Cornelius comes close to the "clearly established" standard required to overcome the qualified immunity defense in this case.

State v. Mason

724 P.2d 1289 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Sep 2, 1986

Although the Arizona Supreme Court granted parole board members only qualified immunity in Grimm v. … Qualified immunity, as contrasted with absolute immunity, would leave the parole board liable for conduct involving discretionary functions violating “clearly established statutory or *1293 constitutional rights of which

Wilson v. City Of Des Moines

293 F.3d 447 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 7, 2002

If the court determines that a constitutional right was violated, then the Court stated that the next question that should be considered is "whether the right was clearly established." Id. 9 Graham v. … The Court analyzed the applicability of qualified immunity by using the two-part inquiry established in Saucier.

Salman v. Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline

104 F. Supp. 2d 1262 · District Court, D. Nevada · Jul 5, 2000

Government officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity only “only insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … A Plaintiff bears the burden of proof regarding whether a right is clearly established. Id.

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.

Antonio Smith v. John Kind

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 30, 2025

But the Supreme Court has cautioned courts against reason- ing from broad principles when considering whether a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. See Kisela, 584 U.S. at 104. … Sheriff of Cook County, 993 F.3d 981, 988 (7th Cir. 2021) (“The prong-two clearly-established-law assess- ment does not require a case with identical factual circum- stances, lest qualified immunity become absolute immun-

George Hedges v. George Randy Poletis

177 F.3d 1071 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 3, 1999

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity only to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Due Process Claim Hedges had clearly established due process rights.

Anaya v. Crossroads Managed Care Systems, Inc.

195 F.3d 584 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 2, 1999

Defendants in their individual capacities: Qualified Immunity To survive the summary judgment motion of the defendants in their individual capacities, the plaintiffs must establish that the law violated was clearly … Defendants in their individual capacities: Qualified Immunity To survive the summary judgment motion of the defendants in their individual capacities, the plaintiffs must establish that the law violated was clearly

Levin v. Childers

101 F.3d 44 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 20, 1996

Qualified immunity protects government officials against suit for the performance of discretionary functions so long as the conduct in question “‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … immunity because the facts pleaded would not show that his conduct violated clearly established law of which a reasonable person should have known at the time.”