Case law

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.

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).

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).

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.

Sanchez v. Swyden

139 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 16, 1998

Under the test for qualified immunity, Sanchez has failed to prove that he was deprived of a clearly established constitutional right. … The Doctrine of Qualified Immunity The well-established test for qualified immunity requires us to engage in a two-step inquiry.

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

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 ....”

Stone v. Peacock

968 F.2d 1163 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1992

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense which protects public officials acting within the scope of their discretionary authority and under clearly established law from insubstantial lawsuits. Butz v. … The jury was instructed to determine if defendants violated clearly established law.

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

Bletz v. Gribble

641 F.3d 743 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 27, 2011

Generally, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is proper if the officer was not on notice that his conduct was clearly unlawful. Higgason v. Stephens, 288 F.3d 868, 876 (6th Cir. 2002). … However, we reverse the district court’s decision denying Denny qualified immunity.

Ewy v. Sturtevant

962 P.2d 991 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 1998

conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … In determining the applicability of qualified immunity, the court need not decide whether specific actions of the officials were unconstitutional, but merely whether the conduct was so clearly unconstitutional that any reasonable

ND Indoor RV Park v. State

2025 ND 92 · North Dakota Supreme Court · May 8, 2025

Wishnatsky, at 401. [¶18] Wagendorf and Nelson are protected by qualified immunity unless the Park “pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly … A constitutional right is “clearly established” if the “contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.

Borzilleri v. Mosby

189 F. Supp. 3d 551 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 31, 2016

Second, regarding the First Amendment claim, she argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate “clearly established law.” Pearson v. … Mosby argues first that Borzilleri fails to state a claim; and second, that-she is entitled to qualified immunity on her Frist Amendment claim because she did not violate “clearly established law.” a.

Fletcher Small v. Officer Brock

963 F.3d 539 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 2020

Of course, our holding does not mean that Small’s right was clearly established for the purpose of qualified immunity. But we need not resolve the issue of qualified immunity in this appeal. … But even if you doubted this precedent, there’s little doubt that the alleged constitutional violation here wasn’t clearly established and thus that the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

McGrew v. Duncan

333 F. Supp. 3d 730 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 10, 2018

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity where their actions do not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Greene v. … This right was "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes at the time McGrew was placed in handcuffs. Id. (citation omitted).

Brooks v. City of West Point

18 F. Supp. 3d 790 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · May 1, 2014

a qualified immunity defense with equal specificity.” … “[A] court addressing a claim of qualified immunity must determine first whether the plaintiff has adduced facts sufficient to establish a constitutional or statutory violation.” Collier v.

Patrick Devlin v. Richard Kalm

531 F. App'x 697 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 15, 2013

In order to overcome the defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity, Devlin must show that the defendants (1) violated his constitutional rights and (2) that those rights were clearly established at the time … “Clearly established” rights must be defined at an “appropriate level of generality” to avoid “collapsing the two qualified- immunity inquiries into one” without being so narrow that no violation can ever be found.

Rosado v. Zayas

629 F. Supp. 911 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 31, 1986

Defendant’s request for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity is likewise DENIED. … A Section 1983 defendant claiming qualified or good faith immunity has the burden to prove that the law was not clearly established at the time of plaintiff’s alleged injuries, or that there exist extraordinary circumstances