Case law

Kaufhold v. Bright

835 F. Supp. 294 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Sep 30, 1993

Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for money damages when their challenged conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known … To analyze a claim of qualified immunity, a court should: (1) identify the specific constitutional right implicated; (2) determine that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation; and (3) consider

Giebel v. Sylvester

244 F.3d 1182 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 12, 2001

was not clearly established at the time of Sylvester's actions. … not entitled to qualified immunity.

Toby J. Sutton v. Patricia Bailey

702 F.3d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 3, 2012

Appellants are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Qualified immunity “depends upon the objective reasonableness of [the alleged misconduct] as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Schleck, 939 F.2d at 641(quotations omitted).

Octavio Delgado v. Police Chief Arthur Jones and Deputy Chief Monica Ray

282 F.3d 511 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 2, 2002

Moreover, in the context of a qualified immunity defense, “The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of a clearly established constitutional right.” Donovan, 17 F.3d at 951 -52 (citing Rakovich v. … After establishing that the plaintiff has adequately alleged a violation of a constitutional right, the second level of inquiry in a qualified immunity analysis involves whether the law was “clearly established” at the time

Duckett v. City of Cedar Park, Texas

950 F.2d 272 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 10, 1992

The Supreme Court held that the first inquiry in the examination of a defendant's claim of qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff "allege[d] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right." … . § 1983 , holding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because defendants "could not reasonably be charged with knowledge that they might be violating a clearly established right of the Plaintiff."

Holdridge v. Blank

255 F. Supp. 3d 1088 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 1, 2017

Qualified Immunity Officer Blank asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. See, e.g., ECF No. 78 at 10. … The qualified immunity doctrine “shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights-of

Harris County, Texas G. Young D. Gehring and J. Cavitt v. Shirley Nagel, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Joel Don Casey

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Aug 25, 2011

Identification of the clearly established law is not a question of fact to be established by evidence. … This would not be qualified immunity, but absolute immunity.

Chapman v. Nichols

989 F.2d 393 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 23, 1993

issue is not unconstitutional and that he is entitled to qualified immunity in any event because the law was not clearly established. 3 Plaintiffs respond that the policy is unconstitutional, that the law was clearly established … Two of the five cases held, as we do here, that the qualified immunity defense must fail in light of clearly established law. See Weber, 804 F.2d at 803-04 ; Jones, 770 F.2d at 742 n. 4.

Walker v. Jackson

952 F. Supp. 2d 343 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 8, 2013

Second, they argue that they have qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established at the ■ time of their alleged violation. … The case law addressing supervisory liability is clearly established, and Sergeant Horan has not advanced any argument in support of qualified immunity. He is not entitled to dismissal of Count Y. v.

Pittman v. Nelms

87 F.3d 116 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 26, 1996

The immunity level consists of two sub-issues — whether the law governing the violation was clearly established at the time of the incident, Siegert v. … But it invokes immunity prematurely if the facts indicate no constitutional violation, clearly established or otherwise. . Like Pittman, Graham grounded his claim on multiple provisions of the Constitution.

Braswell v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

369 F. Supp. 2d 1371 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Apr 26, 2005

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or con *1377 stitutional rights of which a reasonable … This, however, does not end the inquiry with respect to the Defendants’ claim of qualified immunity. The doctrine of qualified immunity originated in Harlow v.

Sonnino v. University of Kansas Hospital Authority

221 F.R.D. 661 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 22, 2004

Under these circumstances, the Court cannot conclude that its decision to overrule the Individual Hospital Defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity was clearly erroneous or that it resulted in manifest injustice to any … Conclusion With the exception of the Court’s ruling on whether the Hospital Defendants’ qualified immunity objections were substantially justified, the Hospital Defendants fail to show how the Court’s rulings were clearly

Alvarez Sepulveda v. Colon Matos

247 F. Supp. 2d 76 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 24, 2003

“[S]tate officials exercising discretionary authority are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not transgress clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights of which a reasonably prudent … “[S]tate officials exercising discretionary authority are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not transgress clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights of which a reasonably prudent

Harris v. Hayter

970 F. Supp. 500 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jul 18, 1997

When a defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, the court should address it at the earliest possible stage because qualified immunity is “an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.” … In determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the focus is upon the reasonable person and whether he would have known that he was violating a clearly established constitutional right.

Hernandez v. Cook County Sheriff's Office

634 F.3d 906 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 24, 2011

This involves two questions: “(1) whether the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, show that the defendant violated a con- stitutional right; and (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established … Whether a Violated Right Was Clearly Established The second inquiry, see Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, is whether the constitutional standards at issue were clearly established at the time the alleged violation oc- curred.

Harris v. Mack

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 20, 2023

Purnell, 652 F.3d 524, 531 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their … a constitutional right and (2) ‘whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.’ ”).

Thomas Wilkinson, Benjamin Wilkinson, by Next Friend Thomas Wilkinson and Jonathan Wiegand v. Caroline S. Russell, James Adams and Gerald Jeffords

182 F.3d 89 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 17, 1999

Under the Vermont qualified immunity standard, then, Russell is entitled to qualified immunity in her communications with Shanley unless Russell reasonably should have known that those communications violated clearly established … In the event that this threshold determination reveals a possible constitutional violation, “ ‘[a] qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it

Farrington v. Poole

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 6, 2026

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages if ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Second, the doctrine of qualified immunity required the district court to apply only clearly established law to the defendants’ conduct.

Putthoff v. Ancrum

934 S.W.2d 164 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Dec 19, 1996

In upholding the district court’s granting of the medical examiners’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, the court reasoned: Qualified immunity is available to government officials performing discretionary … Furthermore, the elements of official immunity and qualified immunity appear for all practical purposes to be the same.

Douglas v. Condon

419 F.3d 1097 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 16, 2005

The district court found that no clearly established Fourth Amendment right had been violated by ADA Dobbs in the search of Douglas’s prescription records and that qualified immunity applied. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory