Case law

Mark A. Campbell v. Kevin Kallas

936 F.3d 536 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 19, 2019

As relevant here, the judge rejected the claim of qualified immunity, concluding that caselaw clearly established a constitutional right to effective medical treatment. We reverse. … Because no case clearly establishes that denying treatment beyond hormone therapy is unconstitu- tional, qualified immunity applies regardless.

Butler Ex Rel. Biller v. Bayer

123 Nev. 450 · Nevada Supreme Court · Oct 11, 2007

Qualified immunity under federal law In 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions, qualified immunity protects state officials from civil liability for damages resulting from discretionary acts, so long as those acts do not violate clearly … Here, because the facts as alleged by Butler do not establish any Eighth Amendment violation, a finding of qualified immunity was appropriate under Saucier. 23 Because Smith is entitled to qualified immunity, we need not

Savage v. State

72 Wash. App. 483 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 8, 1994

We therefore hold that the State is entitled to qualified immunity to the extent the plaintiff relies on the actions of parole officers to establish the State’s liability for negligence under a respondeat superior theory. … Justice Andersen's dissent disputes this characterization of the law in Washington and argues that Guffey, Spurrell and Frost clearly establish that, where an employee has immunity, the State cannot be held liable on a respondeat

Jeffrey Mannoia v. David G. Farrow, Detective

476 F.3d 453 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 7, 2007

In Saucier, the Supreme Court established a two-part test for resolving the issue of qualified immunity. … “Consulting a prosecutor may not give an officer absolute immunity ... but it goes far to establish qualified immunity.” Kijonka v. Seitzinger, 363 F.3d 645, 648 (7th Cir.2004).

Burkes v. Klauser

185 Wis. 2d 308 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1994

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987). 5 The standard of objective legal reasonableness used in determining qualified immunity requires the court to focus on the degree to which clearly established case law gives guidance to … When a court decides a motion for summary judgment based on the defense of qualified immunity, it must determine from the complaint whether the plaintiff has alleged facts establishing a claim for a violation of a clearly

Akau v. Villareal

Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · Jan 14, 2026

immunity "cannot be sustained" because her actions violated a "clearly established" right under the Hawai#i Constitution. … In answer to the SAC, Villareal asserted that she "is not liable for Plaintiffs' alleged injuries and/or damages on the basis of qualified immunity and/or qualified privilege."

Arlane James v. New Jersey State Police

957 F.3d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 21, 2020

Qualified immunity protects government officials from being held liable for damages when their conduct does not violate a citizen’s clearly established rights. … Trooper Bartelt is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate Gibbons’s clearly established rights.

PAULOS VS. FCH1, LLC

2020 NV 2 · Nevada Supreme Court · Jan 30, 2020

Mahan concluded that Officer Baca was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Paulos v. … Noting the two-prong showing for overcoming qualified immunity—that (1) the officers violated a constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established—the Ninth Circuit used its

Bronche Johnson v. California Department of Corrections

384 F. App'x 625 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 17, 2010

The district court properly entered summary judgment on Johnson’s claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) based on qualified immunity because the pertinent law was not clearly established … Callahan, 129 S.Ct. 808, 822 (2009) (holding that state officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law); see also Warsoldier v.

Barrett v. Robydek

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 29, 2024

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity, which “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … However, “[w]hen a qualified immunity defense is asserted at the pleading stage, we have historically found that the inquiry should be limited to the ‘clearly established’ prong of the analysis if feasible.”

Benford v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

554 F. Supp. 145 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 22, 1982

Therefore, officials who act beyond their scope of authority lack standing to assert a qualified immunity defense even in those instances where their behavior does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory … . *150 If the law the congressional defendants are charged with violating was clearly established, their qualified immunity argument must be rejected without further consideration.

Ingram v. Township of Deptford

858 F. Supp. 2d 386 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 13, 2012

deprivation violated clearly established law. … was clearly established.

Mattson v. Streibel

District Court, D. Idaho · Dec 20, 2023

violated clearly established law at the time of the incident. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability unless a plaintiff proves: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time

Andrew B. Bloom v. Melissa Peacock

498 F. App'x 867 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 19, 2012

Further, a defense of qualified immunity may be addressed in a motion to dismiss, which will be granted if the “complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” St. George v. … To determine if an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, courts must determine (i) whether the plaintiff’s allegations establish a constitutional violation, and (ii) whether the constitutional violation was clearly

Paul Cleveland v. Sid Gautreaux, III

938 F.3d 672 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 13, 2019

The dispositive question in this step of the qualified-immunity analysis is “whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.” Ibid. (quoting al- Kidd, 563 U.S. at 742). … Ct. 2042, 2045 (2015) (per curiam) (summarily reversing the Third Circuit for relying on circuit precedent to deny qualified immunity, but “[a]ssuming for the sake of argument that a right can be ‘clearly established’ by

Carol Vincent v. City of Sulphur

805 F.3d 543 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 28, 2015

To defeat qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the official’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of a clearly established rule of law. See id. at 323. … In summary, as we have explained, the alleged constitutional right was not clearly established, so the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Ruben Sebastian v. Javier Ortiz

918 F.3d 1301 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 14, 2019

Qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Now to the “clearly established” question. A plaintiff can show the violation of a clearly established right in a few ways. See Vinyard, 311 F.3d at 1350–52.

Sabir v. Williams

52 F.4th 51 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 17, 2022

Qualified Immunity A. … the right is clearly established.

Mason v. Stock

955 F. Supp. 1293 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 30, 1997

Qualified Immunity Standards Qualified immunity protects public officials from individual liability in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action unless the officials violated “clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable … that an officer is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time a constitutional violation occurred.

Caprita v. Dunaway

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 12, 2024

“To show that the official violated a ‘clearly established’ right, the plaintiff must ‘define with specificity the clearly established legal rule that the officers allegedly violated.’” Paul v. Whitley Cnty. Det. … In response to Defendant’s claim to qualified immunity, Plaintiff cites no case law that would tend to show Dunaway violated Plaintiff’s clearly established right to not be handcuffed like he was.