Case law

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

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.

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

Marvin v. City of Taylor

509 F.3d 234 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 4, 2007

In other words, qualified immunity need only be granted if there is a violation of a constitutional right, but that right was not clearly established at the time the official violated it. … If, and only if, the force used was objectively unreasonable should the Court consider qualified immunity and address the second question: whether the right violated was clearly established. B.

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.

Sayed v. Virginia

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 31, 2018

Sayed fails to allege that Defendants violated his clearly established constitutional rights.” Id. at 57. But the argument that followed did not address qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity and Heck are analytically distinct doctrines: qualified immunity asks whether a defendant violated a constitutional or statutory right that was clearly established, Thomas, 765 F.3d at 1194; Heck evaluates

Jefferson v. Lewis

594 F.3d 454 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 2010

Qualified Immunity 1. … of qualified immunity.

Summerville v. City of Forest Park

195 Ohio App. 3d 13 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 2011

Qualified Immunity {¶17} Qualified immunity shields a government official from civil liability unless (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that right was “clearly established” at … Moreover, she failed to demonstrate that they were not entitled to qualified immunity. {¶34} Therefore, we hold that Pape and Hall are entitled to qualified immunity on Summerville’s Section 1983 claims against them

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

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.

Zaragoza v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs

Supreme Court of Kansas · Jun 27, 2025

Second, she claims that even if the library itself is a qualifying property, the immunity exception does not apply to the parking lot because granting immunity to areas "integral" to the function of a qualifying property … For example, the public library's StoryWalk would qualify for recreational use immunity if it was hosted outdoors but would not qualify for immunity if it was hosted indoors.

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 ....”

Richmond v. City of Brooklyn Center

490 F.3d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 21, 2007

Therefore, we proceed directly to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, which asks whether the asserted constitutional right was clearly established. … that a right is clearly established.'"

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.

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.

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.

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.

Campos v. Van Ness

52 F. Supp. 3d 240 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 29, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity is also not restricted to questions of established law. … Therefore, the questions relating to qualified immunity are whether Van Ness’ conduct violated rights of Martins or Campos that were “ ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct,” July 27, 2008, Plumhoff,