Case law

Gleason v. Metropolitan Council Transit Operations

563 N.W.2d 309 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Aug 5, 1997

In Section 1983 cases, whether an official is protected by qualified immunity “turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action * * * assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the … legally reasonable or that no “clearly established law” prohibited the conduct.

Patterson v. United States of America

999 F. Supp. 2d 300 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 19, 2013

The Qualified Immunity Doctrine At the motion to dismiss stage, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to establish that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. See Bloem, 920 F. … immunity grounds, because the relevant right is not “clearly established” or otherwise, cannot be accepted.

Boles v. Neet

486 F.3d 1177 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 24, 2007

W hile a defendant charged with a constitutional violation receives qualified immunity when the right asserted is not clearly established, the right that has been established does not have to [be] so fact … Was the Constitutional Right Clearly Established?

Thomas v. Bracey

940 S.W.2d 340 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Feb 12, 1997

To grant immunity short of absolute privilege to communications relating to pending or proposed litigation, and thus subject an attorney to liability for defamation, might tend to lessen an attorney’s efforts on behalf of … The letter was clearly written in an effort to secure the rights of appellee’s client, the executor of the estate, in property and income belonging to the estate.

Fuqua v. Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 4, 2025

Because the officers moved to dismiss based on qualified immunity, we must determine whether Fuqua plausibly alleges a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Clearly Established Right To overcome qualified immunity, Fuqua must also show that the officers violated a clearly established right. Lincoln, 880 F.3d at 537.

Cady Ex Rel. Estate of Galambos v. Walsh

753 F.3d 348 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 4, 2014

The three defendants now appeal, arguing that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Finally, the defendants' objection to the district court's analysis of whether the constitutional rights in play were "clearly established" also does not transform this appeal into one that turns on a pure

Peter M. Garvie v. Charles O. Jackson and George W. Wheeler

845 F.2d 647 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 27, 1988

“[Defendants] have qualified immunity unless plaintiffs’ ‘rights were so clearly established when the acts were committed that any officer in the defendant’s position, measured objectively, would have clearly un *650 derstood … The relevant inquiry for this court, in light of defendants’ claim of qualified immunity, is whether Garvie’s asserted property interest was clearly established.

Anthony W. Barton v. Mark Norrod and Randy Pack, Individually

106 F.3d 1289 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 31, 1997

A determination of whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity focuses on the objective legal reasonableness of the official’s action in light of clearly established law. Ibid. … Thus, even were we to disagree with Stockwell’s holding, it entitles Norrod to qualified immunity because it establishes that failure to comply with extradition procedures is not a clearly established right in this circuit

Loughlin v. Tweed

310 F.R.D. 323 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Oct 1, 2015

Tweed contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Tweed responds that he is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct was not objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time.

Byrd v. Harrell

48 F.4th 343 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 31, 2022

When a government official has asserted qualified immunity, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff to ‘rebut the defense by establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law … Ct. 548, 552 (2017) (noting that the purpose of qualified immunity’s clearly-established prong is to “giv[e] fair and clear warning to officers” about what conduct will expose them to liability).

Gonzalez v. City of Elgin

578 F.3d 526 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 20, 2009

Since the purpose of qualified immunity is to protect public officials from guessing about constitutional developments at their peril, the plaintiffs have the burden of showing that the constitutional right was clearly established … it would not violate clearly established rights.”

Fisher v. Moore

73 F.4th 367 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 14, 2023

The school officials sought dismissal of the § 1983 claim on qualified-immunity grounds, arguing that the state-created danger doctrine was not clearly established in this circuit when the underlying events occurred. … “ha[s] not demonstrated a clearly established substantive due process right on the facts [she] allege[s].”14 The district court thus erred in denying qualified immunity to Appellants.

Christian Cutler v. Stephen F. Austin State Univ

767 F.3d 462 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 15, 2014

Cutler insists that the district court correctly stated the clearly established law. Yet, the district court relies on a single case for establishing a clearly established right. See Cutler v. … Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 269–71 (1964), for the clearly established law.

Anny Newman v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Appeal of Diana Burgin

884 F.2d 19 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 28, 1989

Well-established First Circuit precedent limits our review in this case to the issue of qualified immunity; 2. … to qualified immunity on that claim; 3.

K.D., a Minor, Through His Mother, Michelle Deason Michelle Deason, Individually v. County of Crow Wing Andy Galles City of Brainerd Michael Bestul

434 F.3d 1051 · 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.

Kyle Ciminillo v. Thomas Streicher Daniel Hills Richard Janke, Gerald Knight City of Cincinnati

434 F.3d 461 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 17, 2006

Even though Ciminillo alleges facts that, if true, would constitute a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, Knight may still be entitled to qualified immunity unless those rights were “clearly established” at the time … Given Yates, Adams, and Deorle, it was clearly established that shooting Ciminillo with a beanbag was objectively unreasonable. Thus, Knight is not entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Sykes v. Rutgers

308 N.J. Super. 265 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 23, 1998

We need not grapple with this issue because we have concluded that regardless of Rutgers’ entitlement to Tort Claims Act immunity, it is clearly entitled to the common law immunity established in Miehl v. … In the absence of a clearly established landlord-tenant relationship, our courts have previously rejected attempts by slip and fall plaintiffs to classify a particular public entity as akin to a commercial landlord in order

Robinson v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

858 F. Supp. 2d 33 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 1, 2012

because plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence. … Only discretionary activity is protected by sovereign immunity. Id.

Jennifer Johnson v. Joe Phillips

664 F.3d 232 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 22, 2011

In determining whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity, we ask (1) whether the facts alleged establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right and (2) whether that right was clearly established … Holloway, 316 F.3d 777 (8th Cir. 2003), this court held that an official acting outside the clearly established “scope of his discretionary authority is not entitled to claim qualified immunity under § 1983.”

Day v. Idaho Transportation Department

Idaho Supreme Court · Aug 14, 2023

Auth., 124 Idaho 450, 463, 860 P.2d 653, 666 (1993) (“[E]ven though the district 14 court did not explicitly address the qualified immunity issue in responding to Worrell … ’s motions to dismiss and post-trial motions, it is implicit in the court’s rulings that it rejected Worrell’s properly raised immunity claims.”).