Case law

Hoefling v. City of Miami

876 F. Supp. 2d 1321 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 13, 2012

“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Behrens v. … Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing that Officer Roque and Sergeant Gonzalez are not entitled to qualified immunity because he has not shown that Defendants violated his “clearly established” rights.

Parada v. Anoka Cnty.

332 F. Supp. 3d 1229 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 30, 2018

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 or constitutional … established under the Fourth Amendment," arresting officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Marie Moderwell v. Cuyahoga Cnty., Ohio

997 F.3d 653 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 12, 2021

“clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.”’ … Although the factual record is currently wholly undeveloped, the Corrections Defendants nonetheless argue that they are “entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right

Lopez v. Robinson

914 F.2d 486 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 17, 1990

the qualified immunity inquiry. … The prison officials have qualified immunity from both claims.

Miller v. Gammie

335 F.3d 889 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 9, 2003

a complaining witness in presenting a judge with a supporting affidavit to establish probable cause for an arrest. … We must now recognize that beyond those functions historically recognized as absolutely immune at common law, qualified and only qualified immunity exists.

Robert Saterdalen v. James Spencer

725 F.3d 838 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 5, 2013

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability and the burdens of litigation in a § 1983 suit unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable … The question of qualified immunity thus “generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the [official’s] action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

David Jones v. Clark Cty., Ky.

959 F.3d 748 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 18, 2020

Unless the law was clearly established at the time the action occurred, the government official will receive qualified immunity and be insulated from civil suit. Id. … To rebut qualified immunity, Jones must prove that Murray violated a constitutional right and that this right was clearly established. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 589.

Kimberly Boude v. Michael Heady

855 F.3d 930 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 5, 2017

Qualified immunity is a basis to dismiss a claim against a public employee if the alleged conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … This court need not address the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See Harris, 550 U.S. at 377.

Herrera v. City of Albuquerque

589 F.3d 1064 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 14, 2009

O’Brien [wa]s entitled to qualified immunity and [thus was] immune from suit.” Id. at 120. … Qualified immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Van Deelen v. City of Eudora, Kan.

53 F. Supp. 2d 1223 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 29, 1999

At the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, qualified immunity protects defendants performing discretionary functions from individual liability unless, on the face of the complaint, the plaintiff alleges the violation of “clearly established … that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Carter v. Diamond URS Huntsville, LLC

175 F. Supp. 3d 711 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 30, 2016

“The ‘clearly established’ standard does not mean that official’s conduct is protected by qualified immunity unless ‘the very action in question has previously been held unlawful.’” … The officer is “entitled to qualified immunity if his or her conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time of his or her actions,” even if the conduct violated the

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

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.

Grantham v. Trickey

21 F.3d 289 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 12, 1994

balancing test, it can rarely be considered “clearly established” for purposes of the Harlow qualified immunity standard.... ... … We then addressed the city council members’ assertion of qualified immunity and concluded that qualified immunity was not appropriate because Casey’s right of free speech was clearly established. Id. at 804.

Rankel v. County of Westchester

135 A.D.3d 731 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 13, 2016

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity under 42 USC § 1983 for discretionary functions if either (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable … for them to believe that their acts did not violate clearly established rights (see Doe ex rel.

Corona v. City of Clovis

959 F.3d 1278 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 27, 2020

5 clearly established at the relevant time. … Specifically, when a defendant raises the qualified- immunity defense at summary judgment, the plaintiff must establish (1) the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established

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.

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 ....”

Benton School District Lori Bacon, in Her Individual and Official Capacity And Lita Gattis, in Her Individual and Official Capacity v. Brandi Greer

677 S.W.3d 799 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 9, 2023

Section 1983 establishes a federal cause of action that can be filed in either state or federal court. Newton v. Etoch, 332 Ark. 325, 334, 965 S.W.2d 96, 100 (1998). … Smith, 366 Ark. 473, 480, 237 S.W.3d 1, 6 (2006) (finding no qualified immunity under section 301 because the official violated clearly established law); Smith v.