Case law

Caudill v. Hollan

431 F.3d 900 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 14, 2005

Qualified Immunity Defendant Hollan argues that she deserves qualified immunity because the law concerning patronage dismissals of deputy county clerks was not clearly established, particularly in light of Cope … immunity due to the absence of clearly established law.

Mark v. Williams

45 Wash. App. 182 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 27, 1986

The test enunciated in Harlow has effectively eliminated the subjective component of qualified immunity, establishing a purely objective standard. 4 The defendants had a right to believe they could operate as they did since … We note that this qualified immunity created in Bivens, unlike the qualified immunity enunciated later in Harlow for § 1983 actions, is based on both a good faith (subjective) and reasonableness (objective) test.

Barnes v. LAPORTE COUNTY

621 F. Supp. 2d 642 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 7, 2008

In determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, a plaintiff must first allege the deprivation of an actual constitutional right that is clearly established. Doyle v. … Shuter may or may not be entitled to qualified immunity, but Shuter has failed to adequately establish that qualified immunity exists as a basis for dismissal. 4 Shuter’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. [Doc. No. 18.].

Parkway Bank & Trust v. City of Darien

43 Ill. App. 3d 400 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 17, 1976

On this basis an award of damages against public officials with qualified immunity “would be inimical to the efficient functioning of government.” (Rasmussen v. City of Lake Forest, 404 F. Supp. 148, 159 .) … Supp. 148, 159 , states that even where government officials are granted qualified immunity they are still absolutely immune “to damages in the absence of malice ° * * whenever at the time of the action a substantial question

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

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. ... ...

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.

Ruttenberg v. Jones

464 F. Supp. 2d 536 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Dec 13, 2006

Thus, a defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity must be resolved “at the earliest possible stage in litigation.” Id. The Supreme Court has established a two-part qualified immunity inquiry. … Meeker, 415 F.3d at 320 ("Only if a plaintiff alleges the violation of a clearly established constitutional right does his complaint survive a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds.”).

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....”

Blount-Yeye

District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 12, 2025

Plaintiff can show qualified immunity is not appropriate by establishing “(1) the defendants violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … “Generally speaking, it is proper to grant a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds when the complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Corbitt v.

Sudler v. City of New York

689 F.3d 159 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 7, 2012

Qualified Immunity 4 Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability where the 5 officials’ conduct was not in violation of a “clearly established” constitutional right. 6 See, e.g., Doninger … it is “‘clearly established’ in the qualified immunity context, which governs the conduct 18 of government officials who are likely neither lawyers nor legal scholars.” 616 F.3d 19 100, 106 (2d Cir. 2010).

Nelson v. Correctional Medical Services

583 F.3d 522 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 2, 2009

immunity, arguing their actions did not violate any of Nelson’s clearly established constitutional rights. … Qualified immunity may protect government officials from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , but not if their conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

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

Erin Lincoln v. City of Colleyville, Texas

887 F.3d 190 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 5, 2018

“[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time. … It follows that these officers—Meeks, Scott, and Barnes—similarly were not bound by any such clearly established law. The district court correctly granted these officers qualified immunity.

Michael McIntyre and Laura McIntyre, Individually and on Behalf of Their Children, K.M., L.M., C.M., M.M., and L.M. v. El Paso Independent School District, Dr. Lorenzo Garcia, and Mark Mendoza

59 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1387 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 24, 2016

Here, the McIntyres challenge only the officer’s “entitlement to qualified immunity on the substantive due process claim,” arguing he violated their clearly established rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by “swear[ing] … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “courts may not award damages against a government official in his personal .capacity unless ‘the official violated a statutory or constitutional right,’ and ‘the right was “clearly

Cuvo v. Pocono Mountain School District

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … A qualified immunity determination involves a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether a constitutional or federal right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was “clearly established.” Saucier 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.

McGowan v. United States

825 F.3d 118 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 7, 2016

The issue of qualified immunity was presented in the district court, has been fully briefed on appeal, and turns on *124 the purely legal question of whether McGowan alleged a violation of a clearly established right. … Thus, in light of the absence of authority clearly establishing the claimed right, we are constrained to hold that Rivers is entitled to qualified immunity from McGowan’s Bivens claim.

Lambert v. Town of Stringtown

63 O.B.A.J. 2132 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 14, 1992

They sought summary judgment based on the defense of qualified immunity. The trial court overruled their motion and the defendants appealed. … The qualified immunity doctrine may be stated thus: “[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established