Case law

Hernandez v. City of Salem

332 F. App'x 366 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 11, 2009

Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers from personal liability unless “the unconstitutionality of the officers’ conduct was clearly established.” Pearson v. … We REVERSE the district court’s order denying Connolly qualified immunity and REMAND for entry of judgment in favor of Connolly.

Herbert Dellenbach v. James Letsinger, Paul Buchanan, Janet Roberts Blue, Marianna Novak and Debra Banach

889 F.2d 755 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 14, 1989

Absolute immunity, like qualified immunity, has the important attribute of “its possessor's entitlement not to have to answer for his conduct in a civil damages action.” Mitchell v. … Third, a qualified “good faith” immunity would be virtually worthless because of the ease of alleging bad faith.

Neveida Gonzalez v. Tirado-Delgado

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 22, 1993

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability for money damages when their conduct does not violate "clearly established" statutory or constitutional rights of which … are entitled to don the cloak of qualified immunity.

Agster v. Maricopa County Sheriff's office

144 F. App'x 594 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 20, 2005

To obtain our jurisdiction, all the appellants concede for purposes of the appeal the Agsters’ statement of facts and contend that they are still entitled to qualified immunity. … The law was clearly established that forbade the deputies to deploy such potentially lethal force. See Drummond v. City of Anaheim, 343 F.3d 1052, 1059-1061 (9th Cir.2003).

Elias Villalobos v. Louis Picicco

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 6, 2026

Clearly Established Law There are two prongs to the qualified immunity analysis. Doe, 75 F.4th at 716. First, courts ask whether officials violated a federal right. Id. … That means courts must not “define clearly established law at too high a level of generality.”

K.D., a Minor v. County of Crow Wing

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 18, 2006

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in civil lawsuits when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If a violation could be established on the facts alleged, we must then consider whether, in the specific context of the case, the right was clearly established. Id.

Laidley v. Mcclain

914 F.2d 1386 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 13, 1990

Qualified Immunity. 34 The district court declined to rule on the question of qualified immunity. … immunity from suit insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Shelby Riggs v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

734 F.2d 262 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 1, 1984

However, a qualified immunity would not be available to the official “if he knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the Constitutional rights … The district court found it unnecessary to further address the issue of a qualified immunity because plaintiffs had failed to establish the deprivation of a Constitutional right. We agree.

Thompson v. Duke

882 F.2d 1180 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 14, 1989

Cross, 635 F.2d 476, 481 (5th Cir.1981) (not addressing an absolute immunity claim, but stating that parole board members enjoy qualified immunity); Thompson v. … In Morrissey , the Supreme Court established certain procedures which must be observed for revocation of parole. The Court did not consider any claims of immunity, either absolute or qualified.

Sanders v. Brown

504 F.3d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 26, 2007

Even though the MSA is probably a state act, it does not necessarily qualify for Parker immunity from antitrust liability. … In short, Hoover clearly states that the Midcal test does not apply to sovereign state acts, which are immune from antitrust liability so long as they avoid preemption by authorizing per se illegal activities.

Grajales v. Puerto Rico Ports Authority

831 F.3d 11 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 26, 2016

Circuit did state that an entity that does not otherwise qualify as an arm of the state may nevertheless be immune "in a particular case if the entity was acting as an agent of the State or if the State would be obligated … See Amicus Br. of Com. of P.R. at 10-11, FMC, 531 F.3d 868, 2007 WL 2344794 (indicating that § 2303(b) operates within the sovereign immunity framework established by P.R.

Reyes v. City of Richmond TX

287 F.3d 346 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 28, 2002

Officer Cox moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … Importantly, even when all objective facts are viewed in a light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, qualified immunity is clearly not overcome. The court thus has jurisdiction. . . .”

SolarCity Corp. v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District

859 F.3d 720 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 12, 2017

But despite this similarity to qualified immunity cases, the Court reasoned that “[qualified immunity is not the law simply to save trouble for the Government and its employees.” Id. … It also held that state-action immunity is not an “ ‘entitlement’ of the same magnitude as qualified immunity or absolute immunity, but rather is more akin to a defense to the original claim.” Id.

Delores A. Bradshaw v. Alpine School District, Board of Education of Alpine School District, Clark L. Cox, Colene Granger, and William Stanford Stubbs

956 F.2d 277 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 18, 1992

And second, whether the three individual defendants were entitled to "qualified immunity." Brief for Appellant at 31. … The individual defendants, however, may be entitled to "qualified immunity" recognized in a long line of cases.

Dunklin v. Mallinger

611 F. App'x 436 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 3, 2015

The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on grounds of qualified immunity, holding that while a jury could find that the force was excessive, the law was not sufficiently clearly established, given the … The officers were entitled to qualified immunity.

Bilida v. McCleod

211 F.3d 166 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 8, 2000

Government officials are "shielded from liability for civil damages" under section 1983 unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … In our view, these circumstances establish qualified immunity for these two officers, who were the only present individual defendants implicated in the seizure (as opposed to the destruction) of the animal.

Kulas v. Valdez

159 F.3d 453 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 29, 1998

The Court stated that the limits of qualified immunity should be defined in objective terms, with the reasonableness of an official’s conduct measured by reference to clearly established law. … Because the state of the law was clearly established at the time of Dr. Hoffert’s alleged actions, the principal question before this Court for qualified immunity purposes is whether Dr.

Tyrone Petties v. Imhotep Carter

836 F.3d 722 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 25, 2016

Qualified Immunity Inappropriate at Summary Judgment Stage While the district court did not reach the issue, in the proceedings below, *734 the defendants pursued the additional argument that they were entitled to qualified … Obaisi knew that the course of treatment they were pursuing was inadequate to meet Petties’s serious medical needs, such conduct violates clearly established law under the Eighth Amendment.

Gerald H. Groenewold, Ph.D. v. Robert O. Kelley, Ph.D.

888 F.3d 365 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 24, 2018

Bailey, 702 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 2012) (stating that “a right is clearly established if the contours of the right are sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right … immunity.

Levin v. Upper Makefield Township

90 F. App'x 653 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 8, 2004

Qualified immunity applies so long as the government officials’ “conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … In determining whether qualified immunity applies, a court asks: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of a constitutional right, and if so, (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the