Case law

Marcus Blazek v. Juan Santiago

761 F.3d 920 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 5, 2014

Qualified immunity shields a public official from liability for civil damages when his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evi *923 dence, viewed in the light most favorable to Blazek, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established

Vollette v. Watson

937 F. Supp. 2d 706 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 1, 2013

However, the same qualified immunity test that requires this Court to ask “whether a given right was clearly established requires [the Court] to define that right ‘at a high level of particularity.’ ” Id. … immunity because the controlling law was not “clearly established.”

Burruss v. Riley

192 F. Supp. 3d 655 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jun 14, 2016

State officers are entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability for performing discretionary functions only insofar as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … To defeat qualified immunity in the mental health seizure context, a plaintiff must show that the “right allegedly violated was ‘clearly established’ in more than just a general sense.” Id.

Shannon v. Koehler

616 F.3d 855 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 17, 2010

unlawfulness of his conduct was not clearly established. … The defendants filed a notice of appeal setting out three issues: “(1) qualified immunity and whether the law was clearly established; (2) Monell liability; and (3) reversal of the Order bifurcating the . . . claims [against

Jamie Peterson v. David Heymes

931 F.3d 546 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2019

Qualified immunity protects an official from liability if the official’s conduct does not violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known were in existence. … Peterson fails to plead clearly established constitutional violations with respect to each federal claim.

Dixon v. Baldwin

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 25, 2023

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Stephenson v. Doe

332 F.3d 68 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 13, 2003

The court later emphasized that this law was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. … Yet under the same “clearly established law,” the jury nevertheless found that Dingier was also entitled to qualified immunity.

Daily Services, LLC v. Tracy Valentino

756 F.3d 893 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 2014

Qualified Immunity’s Clearly Established Law and Parratt Our qualified immunity analysis first addresses the sole basis for the district court’s decision: whether Daily Services’ claimed constitutional right was “clearly … The applicability of Parratt , then, is irrelevant to the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Jain v. Bd. Of Educ. Of Butler School Dist. 53

366 F. Supp. 3d 1014 · District Court, E.D. Illinois · Mar 12, 2019

. 5 In general, qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages " 'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … of qualified immunity. 6 C.

Douglas Fuqua v. Brett Turner

996 F.3d 1140 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 6, 2021

The District Court agreed that Collier was entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the federal claims because, assuming Collier violated Fuqua’s Fourth Amendment rights, the violation was not clearly established … Qualified immunity protects 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

Ricciuti v. Gyzenis

834 F.3d 162 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 24, 2016

The individual defendants also argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct was not prohibited by clearly established law at the time of Ricciuti’s termination. … Town of Wolcott, 599 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2010), that “even where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official

Linton v. Zorn

135 F.4th 19 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 24, 2025

Linton contends “that Amnesty America clearly established law for qualified immunity purposes.” Appellant Br. at 30 n.8. … Town of West Hartford clearly established a right for qualified immunity purposes, consistent with our holding in Edrei v.

Orozco v. Day

281 Mont. 341 · Montana Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1997

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages "'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … As discussed above, our threshold inquiry in addressing qualified immunity is whether the due process right arising from Orozco's liberty interest in good time credits was clearly established

Kevin M. Leckelt v. Board of Commissioners of Hospital District No. 1

909 F.2d 820 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 28, 1990

Thus, the district court was not clearly erroneous in finding that Leekelt failed to establish that he was discriminated against solely because of a perception that he was infected with HIV. … We are unable to conclude that the district court was clearly erroneous in finding that Leckelt did not establish pretext. C.

McCowan v. Morales

945 F.3d 1276 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 27, 2019

A court can consider the two qualified-immunity inquiries—whether the plaintiff has established a statutory or constitutional violation and whether that violation was clearly established—in any order. See Pearson v. … Because this claim adequately alleges a clearly established Fourteenth Amendment violation, the district court correctly denied Moralez qualified immunity from it. 1.

Summerville v. City of Forest Park

128 Ohio St. 3d 221 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 27, 2010

Chapter 2744 or another provision of the law, including federal qualified immunity. … immunity if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Stewart v. Beach

701 F.3d 1322 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 18, 2012

Judge Robinson then turned to qualified immunity. … Furthermore, we harbor some doubt that Judge Belot’s denial of qualified immunity turned solely on whether the law was clearly established.

Arcoren v. Peters

627 F. Supp. 1513 · District Court, D. South Dakota · Feb 13, 1986

The qualified immunity defense applies equally to RzVews-styled constitutional tort actions and cases brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Butz, 438 U.S. at 500-01 , 98 S.Ct. at 2907-08 . Clearly Established Rights. … Having violated no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of plaintiff, the individual defendants must be dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity. 1 .

Murphy v. Middlesex Cnty.

361 F. Supp. 3d 376 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 17, 2019

could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity." … Thus, to establish qualified immunity, the MCPO Defendants are expected to address these cases and any similar cases in showing whether the rights implicated by this case may be considered clearly established.

Pasco Ex Rel. Pasco v. Knoblauch

566 F.3d 572 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 28, 2009

The district court denied summary judgment based on its findings that Knoblauch had waived his qualified immunity defense by failing to raise it in a timely fashion, and that Knoblauch violated clearly established Fourth … facts amount to a violation of clearly established law.”