Case law

Reinhardt v. Kopcow

66 F. Supp. 3d 1348 · District Court, D. Colorado · Sep 4, 2014

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 … Post, 574 F.3d 1294, 1300 (10th Cir.2009) (qualified immunity places the burden on the plaintiff to show that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation).

Hamilton Ex Rel. Hamilton v. Cannon

80 F.3d 1525 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 19, 1996

However, even if Ross were indistinguishable, Seventh Circuit decisions can not clearly establish the law for purposes of qualified immunity in this circuit. E.g., D'Aguanno v. … McMillian, 939 F.2d 1479, 1497-98 & n. 32 (11th Cir.1991) (law can be "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes by decisions of U.S.

Eva Garrett, Individually and as Administratrix for the Estate of Linda Kay Johnson, Deceased v. Lloyd Rader and Norman Smith

831 F.2d 202 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 13, 1987

They claim that they are entitled to the protection of qualified immunity to damage liability under Section 1983 because they did not violate any “clearly established” rules relating to the care of mentally retarded children … In addition, the court ruled that the question of qualified immunity should await a development of a factual record.

Jenkins v. Town of Vardaman

899 F. Supp. 2d 526 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Oct 22, 2012

If the plaintiff fails to state a constitutional claim or if the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable under clearly established law, then the governmental official is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. … this defense by establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.”

Brown v. City of New York

862 F.3d 182 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 5, 2017

“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 the challenged conduct.” … Brown argues that the two officers “were not entitled to qualified immunity since they violated clearly established law by using substantial and unnecessary force to arrest Ms.

In Re State Police Litigation

88 F.3d 111 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 3, 1996

On appeal, defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity principally because at the pertinent times it was not clearly established that tape-recording telephone calls, without ever listening to them, violated … Summary judgment dismissing a claim on the basis of the defendants' qualified-immunity defense may thus be granted if the court finds that the asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the evidence is such that,

Koistra v. Cnty. of San Diego

310 F. Supp. 3d 1066 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 19, 2018

Qualified Immunity Defendant Vail asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity applies to him. Plaintiff opposes. … Mendoza , 27 F.3d at 1361 (affirming district court's denial of qualified immunity where law was clearly established, but officer's conduct was not objectively reasonable).

Sandoval v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

756 F.3d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 1, 2014

LAS VEGAS METRO POLICE DEP’T 11 For qualified immunity purposes, in determining whether a constitutional right was clearly established, it is not enough that there is a generally established proposition … LAS VEGAS METRO POLICE DEP’T constitutional right was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. See also Tekle v.

Eriakha

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jan 7, 2026

To rebut a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must have “alleged a violation of a constitutional right and whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged violation.” Cope v. … Sheehan, 575 U.S. 600, 613 (2015) (“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if clearly established law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”).

Carlos Samuel v. Morris Holmes, Maudelle Davis-Cade, J. Berengher Brechtel, Gail Moore Glapion, Carolyn Green Ford and Cheryl Q. Cramer

138 F.3d 173 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 31, 1998

Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court held that qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The first question is whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Hal Stanley v. Katherine Finnegan

899 F.3d 623 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 10, 2018

of child abuse.2 2 On the merits, to defeat a qualified immunity defense, plaintiff has the burden of proving that defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. … “Qualified immunity protects public officials from § 1983 damage actions if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Surratt v. McClaran

234 F. Supp. 3d 815 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 3, 2016

Qualified Immunity: Section 1983 Claims against Individual Defendants in their Individual Capacities Defendants argue that Caver, Stevens, and McClaran are entitled to qualified immunity from Section 1983 claims brought against … “Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Sabrina Fields v. City of Omaha, Douglas County, Nebraska, a Municipal Corporation, & Vytautas MacKevicius

810 F.2d 830 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 9, 1987

Officer Mackevicius can claim qualified immunity in the present case if his actions did not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which he should have known. … The officer may not, therefore, claim qualified immunity in this case because he failed to follow clearly established constitutional law of which he should have known.

Issaenko v. University of Minnesota

57 F. Supp. 3d 985 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Sep 30, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … “A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal based on qualified immunity is appropriate when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Dornheim v.

Martin-Mcfarlane v. City of Phila.

299 F. Supp. 3d 658 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 2017

immunity falls to the official claiming it as a defense." 36 Establishing qualified immunity involves a two-step inquiry. … to be resolved before determining whether [a] defendant's conduct violated a clearly established right." 44 A decision as to qualified immunity now, therefore, is premature. 45 2.

May v. Strain

55 F. Supp. 3d 885 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Oct 21, 2014

bears the burden of negating qualified immunity “by establishing a genuine fact issue as to whether the [officers’] *897 allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.” 103 However, all inferences are drawn … This requirement establishes a high bar.” 107 When there is no controlling authority specifically prohibiting a defendant’s conduct, 'the law is not clearly established for the purposes of defeating qualified immunity. 108

Donato Dalrymple v. Janet Reno

334 F.3d 991 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 19, 2003

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates 7 “clearly established … A district court should therefore grant the defense of qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss if the complaint “fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.”

Maguire v. Municipality of Old Orchard Beach

783 F. Supp. 1475 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 18, 1992

The Court concluded that: [T]o win summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, defendants must establish either that the law establishing the right allegedly violated was not clearly established, or that, in light … In this regard, the First Circuit has delineated certain “clearly established” constitutional rights in the context of qualified immunity. See, e.g., Amsden v.

Slone v. Herman

983 F.2d 107 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 5, 1993

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court held that, in order for officials to lose their qualified immunity, their conduct must violate "clearly established statutory … The Court stated that the agent was entitled to qualified immunity if, "in light of the clearly established principles governing warrantless searches, he could, as a matter of law, reasonably have believed that the search

Paradis v. Montrose Memorial Hospital

157 F.3d 815 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 14, 1998

While the Schalk court found that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity because the law on this issue was not clearly established, id. … established law and qualified immunity may not be available to them.”), modified on other grounds , 928 F.2d 920 (1991) (en banc).