Case law

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.

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.

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.”

Rippy v. Hattaway

270 F.3d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 2, 2001

When a defendant asserts qualified immunity in the face of a claim under § 1983, the plaintiff bears an additional burden of pleading facts that, if taken as true, establish not only the violation of his rights, but also … While the promulgation and enforcement of procedures is a conceivable basis for a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff overcomes a qualified immunity defense only by identifying a particularized, clearly established right that

Jefferson v. Lewis

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

Qualified Immunity 1. … of qualified immunity.

Joseph Watson v. Patrick Pearson

928 F.3d 507 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 28, 2019

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 rights of which … In sum, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated Watson's constitutional rights and because those rights were clearly established when the incident occurred.

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

Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. v. Karen Smith

889 F.3d 608 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 2, 2018

In determining whether qualified immunity applies, courts “must determine whether: (1) the facts adduced constitute the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the … It is that rock upon which the district court’s qualified immunity decision founders. The district court was satisfied that, as it said, “[t]he extraterritorialty doctrine has been clearly established for decades.”

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.

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

Barbara Hager v. Arkansas Dept. of Health

735 F.3d 1009 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 14, 2013

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a court must dismiss a complaint against a government official in his individual capacity that fails to state a claim for violation of “clearly established statutory or constitutional … See also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 685; Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526 (“Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before

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.'"

Richard Manriquez v. Joel Ensley

46 F.4th 1124 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 30, 2022

But there still might not be “clearly established” case law in our circuit to withstand qualified immunity. Cf. Jessop v. … The officers are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established then that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.

Harris v. Eichbaum

642 F. Supp. 1056 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 2, 1986

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct____ By defining the limits of qualified immunity essentially … Forsyth that: “Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.

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.

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,

James P. Crocker v. Deputy Sheriff Steven Eric Beatty

995 F.3d 1232 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 20, 2021

The district court held that Beatty was entitled to qualified immunity because the law underlying Crocker’s First Amendment claim wasn’t clearly established. We agree. … In my view, Smith clearly establishes that Mr. Crocker had a right to photograph the accident scene and I would therefore reverse the grant of qualified immunity to Deputy Beatty on this claim.

Terry Cravener v. Mike Shuster

885 F.3d 1135 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 27, 2018

Government officials, like the deputies here, are entitled to qualified immunity “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable official would have known … Determining qualified immunity, this court considers a “two-step inquiry: (1) whether the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established

David New v. Dale Denver

787 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 29, 2015

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability unless his conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known:” Harlow v. … In a § 1983 action alleging violation of that right, qualified immunity applies when “a reasonable officer could have believed [the] arrest to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the arresting

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.