Case law

Manetta v. County of Macomb

955 F. Supp. 771 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 12, 1997

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability under § 1983 unless their conduct violates clearly … ; rather, they are subject to only qualified immunity).

Brown v. Department of the Navy

493 U.S. 831 · Supreme Court of the United States · Oct 2, 1989

Cuevas v. De Roco

531 F.3d 726 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 2008

Qualified Immunity Deputy Starr nonetheless contends that he is protected by qualified immunity. … Moreover, Deputy Starr is not protected by qualified immunity.

Irvin v. Prentiss County, Mississippi

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jan 27, 2021

Clifton, 29 F.3d 1012 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding that law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity “unless it is shown that, at the time of the incident, [the officer] violated a clearly established constitutional … The Defendants contend that Irvin cannot establish deliberate indifference, relying in large part on various affidavits attached to their Motion [56].

Doubleday v. Ruh

93 Daily Journal DAR 9706 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 11, 1993

As clearly held by In Re California Public Utilities Com’n, 892 F.2d 778, 781 (9th Cir.1989), the work product immunity cannot be claimed by one who would ordinarily hold the right to assert the immunity 5 unless that person … Assertion of work product is not assertion of a privilege, but rather assertion of a qualified immunity. Admiral Ins v. U.S.D.C. (Ariz.), 881 F.2d 1486, 1494 (9th Cir.1989).

Washington v. St. Louis, Missouri, City of

District Court, E.D. Missouri · Mar 31, 2021

Defendants assert that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because “their conduct comported with and did not violate clearly established law.” Doc. [11-1] at 13. … immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of the incident that their conduct was a violation of Mr.

Mojica Carrion v. Wetzel

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 2023

Defendants argue that Mojica Carrion’s claims are barred by qualified immunity because the constitutional right which he contends was violated was not clearly established until after the incident underlying his lawsuit … clearly established by Procunier); Martin v.

Betances v. Fischer

837 F.3d 162 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 16, 2016

violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … This panel is bound by Vincent’s rulings as to what was clearly established by Earley I.

Baker v. Airguide Manufacturing, LLC

151 So. 3d 38 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 29, 2014

Based on the changes to her testimony, Baker argued that there was a genuine dispute over material facts whether Airguide possessed the requisite degree of control over Baker to establish Airguide’s immunity under the … Thus, an employer can establish its right to workers’ compensation immunity by either meeting the three-prong test for common law “borrowed servant” immunity or by establishing that the injured employee came from a “help

Creighton v. Anderson

922 F.2d 443 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 17, 1990

Once the plaintiff has demonstrated that the law governing the plaintiffs’ rights was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s acts, the defendant has the burden of proof with respect to all other elements of the … qualified immunity defense.

Shabazz v. Cole

69 F. Supp. 2d 177 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 25, 1999

Qualified immunity exists insofar as defendants’ “ ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Elliott v. … Thus, where the supervisor is not directly involved in the underlying violation, “the ‘clearly established’ prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is satisfied when (1) the subordinate’s actions violated a clearly established

James O'Doan v. Joshua Sanford

991 F.3d 1027 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 19, 2021

In the exercise of our discretion, and with the Supreme Court’s admonitions in mind, we resolve this case only on the “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity framework. … If qualified immunity means anything, it is that clearly established law did not require officers to make a medical judgment that not even O’Doan’s treating physician was willing to hazard.

Trujillo v. Central New Mexico Correctional Facility

District Court, D. New Mexico · Aug 19, 2021

Qualified immunity law Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, Plaintiff does not cite any law supporting the claims in the complaint, much less clearly established law.

Hankins

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 1, 2026

However, unlike most affirmative defenses, plaintiff bears “the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial to overcome qualified immunity by showing a violation of clearly established federal law. … which (2) was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s conduct.”

Bogle v. Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services

District Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 27, 2025

Hyatt should not be shielded by qualified immunity. The Court agrees. As to the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, Ms. … App'x 533, 535 (2d Cir. 2004) (dismissing qualified immunity appeal because employee's right to be free from racially discriminatory imposition of a probationary period was clearly established in 2004)); DiLegge v.

Krzywkowski v. Mohr

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 28, 2025

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … on grounds of qualified immunity.

Glik v. Cunniffe

655 F.3d 78 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 26, 2011

qualified immunity, as it did not -- and could not -- assert such a defense. … Was the Right to Film Clearly Established? Though the "clearly established" inquiry does "not require a case directly on point," al-Kidd, 131 S.

Crawford v. Davis

109 F.3d 1281 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 27, 1997

These defendants will merit qualified immunity unless their alleged conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights,” Harlow v. … Crawford’s clearly established statutory and constitutional rights under the circum *1285 stances. With respect to Ms.

Wilansky v. Bakke

District Court, D. North Dakota · Apr 3, 2024

Accordingly, the individually-named Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Claim One of the Amended Complaint. See Jones v. … McNeese, 675 F.3d 1158, 1161 (8th Cir. 2012) (when deciding qualified immunity, the Court looks to (1) whether a constitutional violation has been adequately pled and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the

Zamsky v. Hansell

933 F.2d 677 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 17, 1991

The cost of establishing the defense of qualified immunity is simply part of the price of having a viable remedy for constitutional violations; it is not a sufficient reason, in and of itself, for finding governmental actors … After all, officials who don’t violate clearly recognized rights will be entitled to qualified immunity — and will not be liable — regardless of how this case is decided.