Case law

Oliver v. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs.

350 F. Supp. 3d 340 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 28, 2018

Qualified immunity shields *352 government officials from liability for civil damages as long as "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Because the plaintiff's right not to *353 be listed in the MSOR was not clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred, qualified immunity insulates the individual defendants in this case from liability under

Jiang v. Porter

156 F. Supp. 3d 996 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Dec 28, 2015

“[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 … Clarke, 45 F.3d 1253, 1255 (8th Cir.1995) (stating that qualified immunity “will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint”).

Charles Jackson v. Billy D. Stair, III

944 F.3d 704 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 3, 2019

If so, qualified immunity does not shield the officer from liability if the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation. … Officer Stair argues that qualified immunity shields him from any potential liability related to the second tasing because Jackson did not have a clearly established right to excessive force at the time.

Ansley v. Heinrich

925 F.2d 1339 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 11, 1991

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity protects public officials, acting within the scope of their discretionary authority and under clearly established law, from insubstantial lawsuits. Butz v. … In Harlow , the Supreme Court stated that the immunity defense should fail if the law governing the official’s actions has been clearly established.

Roy Lee Williams v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

117 F.4th 503 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 20, 2024

But that rule was newly articulated, and this Court held that qualified immunity applied because that articulation of the right was not clearly established. Id. at 553. … Thus, a letter from a federal agency cannot satisfy the ‘clearly established’ standard for qualified immunity.

Willard Berry v. Brian Doss

900 F.3d 1017 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 20, 2018

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), and argued that, because there was no evidence they ignored Berry’s complaint, they did not violate a clearly established Eighth Amendment right and thus were entitled to qualified immunity. … Our jurisdiction to consider an appeal of an order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity is limited to “‘the purely legal issue’ of ‘whether the facts . . . alleged support a claim of violation of clearly established

Darnell Hines v. Ashrafe Youseff

914 F.3d 1218 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 1, 2019

So for the officials here to lose qualified immunity, it would have to have been clearly established that treating people of all races the same violated the Equal Protection Clause. … So we conclude that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. The rights that the inmates claim were not clearly established when the officials acted. Granting leave to amend would be futile.

National Camera, Inc. v. Sanchez

832 P.2d 960 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 1991

Qualified immunity protects governmental officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability unless their actions violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … To overcome a qualified immunity defense, however, the plaintiff cannot simply identify a clearly established right in the abstract which the defendant has allegedly violated. Hilliard v.

International Action Center v. United States

365 F.3d 20 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 16, 2004

eliminated, so long as the plaintiff has alleged (with or without evidence to back it up) violation of one ‘clearly established’ right.” … Merits 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

McCoy v. Meyers

887 F.3d 1034 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 10, 2018

“The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Id. at 1866 (quotations omitted). … McCoy’s clearly established right to be free from the continued use of force after he was effectively subdued. We address both steps of the qualified immunity analysis. a.

Scott Rabin v. Michael Flynn

725 F.3d 628 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 9, 2013

We find that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful arrest claim, because even if the officers had known what that type of license was, it still would have been reasonable under clearly established … “[A] court may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law without first resolving whether the purported right exists.”

Arnzen v. State

123 Idaho 899 · Idaho Supreme Court · May 13, 1993

Thus, in order to determine whether Richardson, in his individual capacity, was entitled to qualified immunity, we must ask: 1. Was there a clearly established law; 2. … This prong of the qualified immunity analysis is a compound question: (1) did Arnzen have a clearly established right; and (2) did Richardson’s conduct violate it?

Burke v. Glanz

292 F. Supp. 3d 1235 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 9, 2017

With respect to the second component of the qualified immunity analysis, to show clearly established law, a plaintiff must generally identify a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit opinion which existed at the time of the alleged … Glanz also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

West Virginia Department of Health, Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, and Allen R. Mock, M.D. v. Dr. Patsy Cipoletti, Jr., Administrator of the Estate of June Cipoletti

West Virginia Supreme Court · May 21, 2024

whether qualified immunity applies on a “case-by-case basis.” 7 We recently summarized our qualified immunity jurisprudence as follows: Qualified immunity is an immunity from suit afforded … Va. 573, 587, 10 Respondent relies on the MPLA as the basis for his position that he has alleged the violation of a “clearly established statutory right” to defeat Petitioners’ claim to qualified immunity

Fulwood v. Porter

639 A.2d 594 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 1994

in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … Roberts, 823 F.2d 235, 238 (8th Cir.1987) (“clearly established law” for immunity purposes is supervisor’s duty in the particular circumstances to train adequately).

Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles

96 F. Supp. 3d 990 · District Court, C.D. California · May 29, 2014

immunity to officers who used Tasers in which courts held that Taser usage was not “clearly established.” … These theories arose from clearly established constitutional violations which, if proven, would disqualify a defendant from qualified immunity protections. Hope v.

Neal W. Roland v. Perry Johnson, Thomas Phillips, Dale Foltz, Bernie Toland

933 F.2d 1009 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 22, 1991

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1988), the Supreme Court refined the qualified immunity test developed in Harlow. … Accordingly, defendants' claim of qualified immunity is without merit. 9 The defendants next assert the district court erred in entering judgment in Roland's favor.

Estate of Lockett ex rel. Lockett v. Fallin

841 F.3d 1098 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 15, 2016

Qualified Immunity All Appellees claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects government, officials from suit, not just from liability. Mitchell v. … Thus, Appellees have violated no clearly established law. D. Quasi-Judicial Immunity Dr.

Eng v. Cooley

552 F.3d 1062 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 14, 2009

If a plaintiffs constitutional rights were not clearly established at the time of the violation, then qualified immunity should be granted. 2. Whether Eng’s Rights Were Clearly Established a. … established’ to preclude qualified immunity.”

Brenden v. Castro

District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 26, 2025

Therefore, Castro is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that individual defendants could be liable on a takings claim. See Novak v. … Castro is also not entitled to qualified immunity because it is clearly established that a false claim of lawful authority can invalidate consent. See id; Amos v.