Case law

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.

Simmie Whitt v. Roger Smith

832 F.2d 451 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 2, 1987

On summary judgment, the judge appropriately may determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action occurred .... … 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. ... ...

Lawlor v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2019

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243 (2009) (holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity where they “did not violate clearly established law”). … to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ Wiretap Act claim.

Barbara Bays v. Montmorency Cty., Mich.

874 F.3d 264 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 20, 2017

Because a triable issue of fact remains over whether Sigler violated Shane’s clearly established Fourteenth Amendment right to sufficient treatment for a serious medical problem, we affirm the district court’s qualified- … In a qualified-immunity case, we ask two questions: Did the officer violate the injured party’s constitutional rights? If so, was the right clearly established at the time? Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009).

Manion v. Michigan Board of Medicine

765 F.2d 590 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 24, 1985

If the law which the defendant it alleged to have violated is clearly established, then the qualified immunity defense should fail and discovery should proceed. … If the law is not clearly established, the defendant is immune.

Brandon Peterson v. Cmdr. Roger Heinen

89 F.4th 628 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 26, 2023

To decide whether the district court should have granted qualified immunity, we ask if the facts “demonstrate the deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right” and if “the right was clearly established at the time of … Because the facts, even when viewed in the light most favorable to Peterson, do not support the violation of a clearly established right, we reverse.

Baillargeon v. Drug Enforcement Administration

707 F. Supp. 2d 305 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Apr 12, 2010

Ashcraft’s Objection In her objection, Ashcraft disputes Judge Almond’s conclusion as to the ‘clearly-established right’ prong of the qualified immunity test. … The Court explained: ‘Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that

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....”

Franceski v. Plaquemines Parish School Board

602 F. Supp. 691 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Feb 7, 1985

rights must show that these rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue, in order to overcome a defendant official’s qualified immunity. … Plaintiff has failed to assert a clearly established right which was violated. In this regard, the instant case is indistinguishable from Davis v. Scherer, supra, which is dispositive on the issue of qualified immunity.

Gray v. Baker

399 F.3d 1241 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 1, 2005

In particular, Baker and Nero argue it was “not ‘clearly established’ statutory law that [they] c[ould] be sued under the FMLA as individuals,” and thus they are entitled to qualified immunity from that claim. … appeal whether the challenged action by the defendant officials [wa]s a violation of federal law at all, clearly established or not.”

Board of County Commissioners Ex Rel. Teton County Sheriff's Department v. Bassett

8 P.3d 1079 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Jul 25, 2000

prudent police officer in similar cireumstances, refused to include Ortega among those whose fault was compared, and rejected the claim of qualified immunity. … This Court held that the implied immunity defense did not apply to operational functions of the patrolmen, which do not qualify as the basic, discretionary, policy-making type of functions that the defense of qualified immunity

McDonald v. Bishop

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 22, 2021

Under the Free Exercise Clause, a prisoner has a clearly established right to a diet consistent with his religious principles. Wall, 741 F.3d at 498–500. … McMillan, 502 F.2d 1326, 1331 (4th Cir. 1974) (finding that qualified immunity “has no application to a suit for declaratory or injunctive relief”); see also Cloaninger ex rel. Estate of Cloaninger v.

Ray Scott v. Tobias J. Tempelmeyer

867 F.3d 1067 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 16, 2017

Tempelmeyer appeals the denial of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields a government official from suit when his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Babb v. Dorman

33 F.3d 472 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 19, 1994

"Qualified" or "good faith" immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability "unless their conduct violates 'clearly established statutory … Moreover, his proposed second amended complaint added nothing to aid in the determination of the qualified immunity issue except for the legal conclusion that Dorman's actions violated clearly established law.

Tricoci v. Vidljinovic

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 13, 2025

This brings the Court to Defendants’ third argument: qualified immunity. … 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 would have

Caldwell v. Brogden

678 So. 2d 1148 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · May 10, 1996

A qualified immunity inquiry involves two questions: first, whether the defendants were acting within the scope of their discretionary authority, and second, whether their actions violated clearly established law. … The burden then shifted to Caldwell to prove that they violated clearly established law, a burden that she failed to meet.

Conner v. Department of Commerce

443 P.3d 1250 · Court of Appeals of Utah · May 23, 2019

Department of Commerce those terms when discussing immunity conferred by the GIA. In this context, “qualified immunity” simply means “immunity subject to exceptions,” Hansen v. … ¶40 Conner also argues that the Defendants waived the governmental immunity defense when they agreed to withdraw (…continued) discretionary functions when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Troy Rokusek v. Cody Jansen

899 F.3d 544 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 8, 2018

To overcome Trooper Jansen’s claim of qualified immunity, Rokusek must show the violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Gilmore v. … We now turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity test: whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Beatrice Luna v. Texas Department of Pub Sf

765 F.3d 531 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 28, 2014

Discussion The doctrine of qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Clearly Established Law Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, plaintiffs must show that Mullenix’s actions violated a constitutional right that was sufficiently clearly established.

Carlos D. Goad and Robert J. Wuchich v. Betty Mitchell, Jacqui Visintine, and M.A. Gilbert

297 F.3d 497 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2002

Qualified Immunity and Heightened Pleading Requirements In civil suits for money damages, government officials are entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts that do “not violate clearly established [federal] statutory … a complaint adequately alleges violation of clearly established law.