Case law

Pennington v. Teufel

396 F. Supp. 2d 715 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Aug 26, 2005

Because Plaintiffs have not alleged and cannot show that any of these Defendants violated any clearly established federal law, the Court agrees that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery’ ”) (quoting Mitchell v.

Krout v. Goemmer

583 F.3d 557 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 6, 2009

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability when his conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … That is the ‘clearly established’ law.

Janice Brown v. Andrew Knapp

75 F.4th 638 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 28, 2023

The district court denied both motions, finding that the MSP Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because they had collectively violated Brown’s clearly established right to a prompt probable cause determination … We found that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because, even if he had violated Roberson’s constitutional rights, “Riverside and its progeny [did] not clearly establish that an officer in [the trooper’s] position

Dunlap v. Hilgenkamp

82 F. Supp. 2d 1052 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Jan 25, 2000

. § 1983 for their performance of discretionary functions are entitled to a qualified immunity defense if they prove that their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Qualified immunity is a question of law.

Dodds v. Richardson

614 F.3d 1185 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 6, 2010

As Justice Thomas explained: In conducting qualified immunity analysis ..., courts do not merely ask whether, taking the plaintiffs allegations as true, the plaintiffs clearly established rights were violated. … For instance, an allegation that Defendant A violated a plaintiffs clearly established rights does nothing to overcome Defendant B’s assertion of qualified immunity, absent some allegation that Defendant B was responsible

Bell v. City of Cleveland

548 F. Supp. 2d 444 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 19, 2008

In other words, any “objectively reasonable” action by a state officer, as assessed in the light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct at issue, will be protected by qualified immunity. … and 2) that the right violated was clearly established.

Benavides v. Nunez

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 16, 2025

Qualified immunity shields an officer from liability if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. … To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Moore, William v. Hartman, Michael

388 F.3d 871 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 9, 2004

TATEL, Circuit Judge: Qualified immunity generally shields public officials from civil damages ‘‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Accordingly, Moore has alleged the violation of a constitutional right, precluding summary judgment under the first element of the qualified immunity test. Was the Law Clearly Established?

Dettelis v. Sharbaugh

919 F.3d 161 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 20, 2019

Instead, we conclude that qualified immunity bars Dettelis’s claim. 4  As a general matter, probation officers are entitled to immunity in the performance of … App’x 83, 84 (2d Cir. 2008) (holding state parole officer entitled to qualified immunity in filing parole violation charges).

Cummerlander v. Patriot Preparatory Academy Inc.

86 F. Supp. 3d 808 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 9, 2015

’ argument that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … In the context of school search and seizure, the Supreme Court in Safford set forth the standard for a clearly established law: A school official searching a student is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established

Hourigan v. Cassidy

131 N.M. 141 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 2001

They contend that the trial court erred in denying their claim of qualified immunity. … “Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 as long as ‘their conduct [did] not violate clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights

Serra v. United States General Services Administration

664 F. Supp. 798 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 14, 1987

The standard is an objective one: “whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.’ … Thus, for Diamond and Ink to be stripped of their qualified immunity from suit, it must have been clearly established at the time they acted that Serra possessed a cognizable constitutional liberty or property interest in

France v. Hunter

368 S.W.3d 279 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 2012

from suit under the doctrines of qualified immunity, official immunity, and judicial immunity. … Public officials are provided qualified immunity for their official acts unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established

Thurman King v. City of Rockford, MI

97 F.4th 379 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 28, 2024

Qualified immunity shields officers from civil liability when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. … Because King’s conduct “does not fit cleanly within” our existing excessive force case law, King cannot overcome the clearly established hurdle of qualified immunity. Rudlaff, 791 F.3d at 644 (quoting Cockrell v.

Chalmers v. The City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 16, 2023

established so qualified immunity applies); Singleton v. … Qualified immunity also depends on the resolution of material facts.

Haney v. Monsky Ex Rel. Zager

311 S.W.3d 235 · Kentucky Supreme Court · May 7, 2010

Qualified Official Immunity As this Court thoroughly explained in Yanero v. … Qualified official immunity applies only where the act performed by the official or employee is one that is discretionary in nature. Id.

Burbank v. Davis

227 F. Supp. 2d 176 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 23, 2002

The second question is whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Under the First Circuit’s three-part qualified immunity standard the “clearly established” element has two prongs: one, whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation and, two, whether a reasonable

Rustgi v. Board of County Commissioners of County of Weld, Colorado

District Court, D. Colorado · Apr 29, 2021

Because Rustgi possessed a clearly established constitutional right and has alleged a constitutional violation by Sheriff Reams, dismissal is inappropriate on qualified immunity grounds. See Keith v. … was clearly established.

William Thomas Meloy v. Kathy Bachmeier Dr. Bernard J. O'Neill

302 F.3d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 11, 2002

Thus, we proceed to the second qualified immunity question: whether the right was clearly established. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … Because the law was not clearly established that Ba-chmeier was deliberately indifferent to Meloy’s serious medical needs, Bachmeier is entitled to qualified immunity.

Marine Maria Quives v. Rick Campbell and Jedd Blessing

934 F.2d 668 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 1, 1991

The court held that the defendants are entitled to. qualified immunity because “Campbell and other state officials could not reasonably be charged with knowledge that they might be violatr ing a clearly established right … the constitutional issues,” “[e]oncluding that the asserted federal statutory rights were clearly and particularly established at the time of the alleged wrongs....”