Case law

Kayla Robinson v. Angela Hawkins

937 F.3d 1128 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 5, 2019

In considering a defense of qualified immunity, the law must not be examined at a high level of generality: “The dispositive question is whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.” … Rulings declaring the violation of a “clearly established right” require careful attention, because “qualified immunity is important to ‘society as a whole,’ and because as ‘an immunity from suit,’ qualified immunity ‘is

McCartney v. May

50 S.W.3d 599 · Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Jun 7, 2001

overcome their entitlement to qualified immunity. … ’s qualified immunity on May’s substantive due process claims.

Rutland v. Pepper

404 F.3d 921 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 28, 2005

Glynn Pepper’s summary judgment motion asserting in part his qualified immunity as a state official. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields 2 government officials from civil liability as long “as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Brad Rush v. City of Philadelphia

78 F.4th 610 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 30, 2023

Dennis and denied Officer Nicoletti qualified immunity. … However, qualified immunity exonerates even unreasonable officer conduct unless (1) the officer violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established, “such that ‘it would [have been] clear to a reasonable

Scallion v. Parish of Red River

251 F. App'x 853 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 15, 2007

Scallion fails to identify a clearly-established constitutional right violated by Myers. See id. … (first step in qualified-immunity analysis is identifying a clearly-established constitutional right that has been violated); Malley v.

Michtavi v. Scism

808 F.3d 203 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 19, 2015

She also concluded that the Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because Eighth Amendment jurisprudence clearly establishes that prison officials may not be indifferent to a serious medical need. … “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity.

Montague v. Cooley

735 So. 2d 511 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 28, 1999

A determination of qualified immunity involves a two part analysis. See Vermette v. … Cooley’s clearly established rights, we reverse the trial court’s order denying Officer Montague’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Reversed and remanded. FULMER, A.C.J., Concurs in result only.

CITADEL WELLWOOD URBAN RENEWAL LLC v. BOROUGH OF MERCHANTVILLE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 27, 2023

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of … ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Ahmad v. Department of Correction

446 Mass. 479 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 7, 2006

In January, 2003, the defendants moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The motion was denied without prejudice to permit sufficient discovery regarding the applicability of qualified immunity. … Consequently, the defendants are entitled to the protections of qualified immunity. Conclusion.

Penilla v. City of Huntington Park

115 F.3d 707 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 6, 1997

Because the officers have moved for qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss, we decide only whether defendants’ alleged conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights. Todd v. … The officers argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established constitutional right to emergency medical care for persons not in custody and because there is no clearly established

McMillian v. Johnson

88 F.3d 1554 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 9, 1996

The issue for qualified immunity purposes, however, is not whether the due process right not to be punished before conviction was clearly established. … Clearly Established Law Prohibited Police' Suppression of Exculpatory and Impeachment Evidence Tate, Ikner, and Benson are protected by qualified immunity unless their actions violated clearly established law.

Hudson v. Maloney

326 F. Supp. 2d 206 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 23, 2004

Qualified immunity attaches to discretionary conduct of government officials that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (officers immune unless their actions were “clearly proscribed” by established law).

Steven Bangs v. Walter William Smith

84 F.4th 87 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 12, 2023

Geraci, Judge) dismissing his complaint on the grounds that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because Bangs’s rights in this context were not clearly established. … For purposes of qualified immunity, “[w]hether the law was sufficiently clearly established is . . . an issue of law that we consider de novo.” Outlaw v. City of Hartford, 884 F.3d 351, 366 (2d Cir. 2018).

Austin Webster v. Saint Louis County

135 F.4th 614 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 24, 2025

In the alternative, the district court concluded that Lemke was entitled to qualified immunity because her action did not violate a clearly established right. Webster also sued Lemke and St. … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established right of which a reasonable official would have known. Harlow v.

Katrina McGrew v. Sergeant Duncan

937 F.3d 664 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 4, 2019

Qualified immunity shields the officers from suit if (1) they did not violate any of McGrew’s constitutional rights or (2) the violated rights, if any, were not “clearly established” when they acted. Pearson v. … So whether they are entitled to qualified immunity turns on whether McGrew suffered an injury and whether the right she claims they violated was clearly established when they acted.

People v. Hartwick

303 Mich. App. 247 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 2013

Accordingly, we hold that defendant failed to produce sufficient evidence at the evidentiary hearing to qualify for the § 4(d) presumption of immunity and that he is not entitled to immunity under § 4 of the MMMA. C. … Section 4(f), which provides a qualified immunity for physicians, mandates that the immunity only applies to physi *262 cians that prescribe marijuana “in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship ....”

Tortes v. King County

119 Wash. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 2, 2003

These individual public officials are immune from personal liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … It is preferred that a defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity be decided as a matter of law on summary judgment. 19 The central purpose of qualified immunity is to protect public officials from interference with their

Creech Poole v. City of Shreveport

13 F.4th 420 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 10, 2021

Qualified immunity shields officers from liability unless their conduct violates a clearly established federal right of which a reasonable person would have known. Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. … of clearly established law.

Anselmo v. County of Shasta

873 F. Supp. 2d 1247 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 8, 2012

“[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 should have … If a right is clearly established, a public official is granted qualified immunity only if a reasonable official would not have known that his conduct violated the clearly established right. See id.

Mihos v. Swift

358 F.3d 91 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 13, 2004

For a plaintiff to overcome a qualified immunity defense, he must show that his allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation; that the right was clearly established; and that a reasonable official would have … Under Wood, then, a plaintiff could usually avoid an adverse pre-trial qualified immunity ruling by merely alleging (1) a constitutional violation (2) of clearly established law (3) by a public official