Case law

Jason Carter v. Mark Ludwick

139 F.4th 982 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 12, 2025

On count two, evidence concealment in violation of due process, the court granted qualified immunity because it was an “entirely novel claim” that was not clearly established. … Carter’s argument does not survive the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Calvin B. Champion v. Outlook Nashville, Inc., Debbie Miller

380 F.3d 893 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 19, 2004

Qualified immunity provides “that government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … The court held that the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity was not proper because the officers had violated Drummond’s clearly established rights. Id. at 1062.

Crittindon v. LeBlanc

37 F.4th 177 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 10, 2022

Nonetheless, the majority concludes three DPSC defendants violated plaintiffs’ clearly established right to timely release from prison and denies them qualified immunity. … Even still, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, because it is not clearly established that it violates the Constitution to hold a prisoner for 17 days while employing reasonable efforts to verify his sentence

Katz v. United States

194 F.3d 962 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 22, 1999

On the issue of qualified immunity, the district court held that the law governing the use of force in an arrest was clearly established. … A defendant will always be entitled to qualified immunity when the law governing his or her conduct was not clearly established — the first prong of the qualified immunity defense.

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

Krainski v. Nevada Ex Rel. Board of Regents

616 F.3d 963 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 2, 2010

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … As we have previously noted, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects state actors when the constitutional right at issue was not “clearly established” at the time of the actions at issue.

Banks v. Herbrich

90 F.4th 407 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 3, 2024

The district court denied DFPS’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that its employees were not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated clearly established law by removing R.B. … immunity analysis asks whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the misconduct.

Gwinnett County v. King

218 Ga. App. 800 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Oct 4, 1995

“Government officials performing discretionary functions are granted a qualified immunity shielding them from imposition of personal liability pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … established.

Baker v. Gray

57 Mass. App. Ct. 618 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 24, 2003

The doctrine of qualified immunity may shield State officials from liability for civil damages under this statute, so long as they are performing discretionary functions and do not violate “clearly established statutory or … Gray accordingly was entitled to qualified immunity from the plaintiffs’ additional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of their clearly established rights under the First Amendment and equal protection clause

Jones v. Nolin (INMATE 1)

District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 13, 2020

“The purpose of the qualified immunity defense is to protect[] government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … The Eleventh Circuit has determined that the law is “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity “only by decisions of the U.S.

Kanzler v. Renner

937 P.2d 1337 · Wyoming Supreme Court · May 23, 1997

The standard of qualified immunity established under our common law is distinct from the federal standard. 4 In Dar-rar v. … In his summary judgment materials, Renner bases his entitlement to qualified immunity on the federal standard, stating that he acted in good faith at all times and violated no clearly established law.

Schatz Schatz Family v. Gierer

346 F.3d 1157 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 16, 2003

Where jurisdiction is appropriate, the scope of appeal is limited to the narrow issue of whether plaintiffs have alleged a violation of "clearly established" law. See Johnson v. … Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313 , 115 S.Ct. 2151 , 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995). 4 The district court announced the proper standard for addressing qualified immunity at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage — whether immunity is established on the

Martinez v. Hardy

864 S.W.2d 767 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 28, 1993

Indeed, our finding of absolute privilege could be expressed in terms of qualified immunity. … Our absolute privilege analysis clearly shows that the first two elements of qualified immunity are met.

Britt v. Anderson

21 F. Supp. 3d 966 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 28, 2014

Qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional *970 rights of which a reasonable person would … Count I *974 is dismissed because Anderson did not violate any “clearly established” constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment and is thus entitled to qualified immunity.

Aldini v. Johnson

609 F.3d 858 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 29, 2010

Bodine was entitled to qualified immunity. … Under the “clearly established” inquiry, the question is whether the right was “so ‘clearly established’ that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Hicks v. Feeney

596 F. Supp. 1504 · District Court, D. Delaware · Nov 8, 1984

This standard mandates that an official is protected by qualified immunity except when his conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 457 U.S. … In a recent decision, the Third Circuit defined “clearly established rights” for the purposes of qualified immunity.

Brocuglio v. Proulx

478 F. Supp. 2d 297 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 23, 2007

Defendants also complain that I should not have granted summary judgment, because the law was not clearly established with respect to the curtilage issue, and thus the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity involves a three-step analysis: (1) whether the officials violated the plaintiffs constitutional right; (2) whether the law was clearly established with respect to that right; and (3) whether reasonable

Sullivan v. Sumrall by Ritchey

618 So. 2d 1274 · Mississippi Supreme Court · May 13, 1993

Bobbie Sullivan raised the defense of qualified immunity and/or absolute immunity pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 41-13-11 , et seq. (Supp. 1991). … . § 41-13-11 (Supp. 1991), which provides immunity for community hospitals established pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 41-13-15 (Supp. 1991).

Saenz v. Lovington Municipal School District

105 F. Supp. 3d 1271 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Apr 30, 2015

established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis.

Shilling v. Crawford

536 F. Supp. 2d 1227 · District Court, D. Nevada · Mar 12, 2008

Plaintiff argues Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated his clearly established rights under RLUIPA. 1. … Qualified immunity applies unless a defendant’s conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Hope v.