Case law

Price v. Kelly

847 F. Supp. 163 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 1994

The Supreme Court established the current qualified immunity analysis in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … As discussed, the second half of the two-part qualified immunity analysis focuses on whether or not the constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the violation, such that defendants knew or should have

Morris v. Johnson

262 Ga. App. 182 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jul 8, 2003

“Government officials, including police officers, are entitled to immunity from personal liability under 42 USC § 1983 if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … S. 635, 640 (107 SC 3034, 97 LE2d 523) (1987). 5 The burden on the plaintiff to show a clearly established right is a *184 strenuous one. 6 And “if the law is not clearly established, the officer is entitled to summary judgment

Finley v. Trent

955 F. Supp. 642 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Feb 28, 1997

The Court finds that the right to prompt medical attention for a serious medical need was clearly established in 1994. … Summary judgment based upon qualified immunity is inappropriate “where what actually happened ... need[s] to be resolved by the trier of fact in order to reach a decision on the applicability of qualified immunity.”

Raymond Kelley v. Chad Pruett

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 8, 2026

or statutory right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.’” … Stopping there, the district court also did not consider the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Cutino v. Untch

79 F. Supp. 3d 1305 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 14, 2015

Qualified Immunity Standards Qualified immunity “offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … In this respect, qualified immunity “ ‘gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments.’ ” Carroll v.

Reynolds v. Powell

370 F.3d 1028 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 3, 2004

“In an action under section 1983, individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless it is demonstrated that their alleged conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … We also review the legal issues surrounding the grant of qualified immunity de novo. Id.

Soto v. Bzdel

214 F. Supp. 2d 69 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 26, 2002

was clearly established at the time of the [official’s] alleged violation.” … If courts deciding § 1983 suits on the basis of qualified immunity were to tackle the difficult substantive law, then the law would become 'clearly established' so that officers presented with similar factual scenarios in

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.

Ramirez v. Health Partners

193 Ariz. 325 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Jun 23, 1998

The Act’s qualified immunity provisions are consistent with the majority (if not unanimous) rule of other jurisdictions, the UAGA, and public policy. … . ¶ 33 Plaintiffs finally contend the Act’s qualified immunity provisions violate Arizona’s equal protection clause, Ariz.

Archer v. Chisholm

188 F. Supp. 3d 866 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · May 26, 2016

She is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the plaintiff plausibly pleads that she violated a constitutional right, and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Qualified immunity—validity of warrant Turning to qualified immunity, again, to overcome qualified immunity the plaintiff must plausibly allege that the defendants violated a constitutional right, and that the right was clearly

Ramirez v. Webb

835 F.2d 1153 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 23, 1987

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court established that officials are denied qualified immunity only when their alleged acts violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional … Accordingly, defendant INS agents have qualified immunity unless plaintiffs’ “rights were so clearly established when the acts were committed that any officer in the defendant’s position, measured objectively, would have

Phyllis J. May v. City of Nahunta, Georgia

846 F.3d 1320 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 19, 2017

In evaluating a government actor’s entitlement to qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has developed an objective-reasonableness test wherein “the official’s actions must be evaluated against ‘clearly established law,’ … Second, we determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of alleged conduct. Id.

Thompson v. Grida

656 F.3d 365 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 8, 2011

Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001) (“The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation … Appellants cite a number of cases to support their qualified immunity argument that the right not to be arrested in the circumstances presented in this case is not clearly established.

Parker v. Board Of Regents Of Tulsa Junior College

981 F.2d 1159 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 17, 1992

Id.; Patrick, 953 F.2d at 1243 . 10 Once a defendant asserts qualified immunity, "[t]he plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was clearly established." … Accordingly, they maintain that plaintiff's action is barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. 14 To determine whether plaintiff's action is barred by qualified immunity, we first consider whether she was deprived of

Hall v. Thomas

190 F.3d 693 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 29, 1999

Finally, the district court held that even if the ADA did apply to prisons, the defendants would be qualifiedly immune from suit thereunder because Hall’s rights under the ADA were not clearly established at the time of … not clearly established prior to Yeskey.

Rodgers v. Horsley

39 F.3d 308 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 5, 1994

DISCUSSION 9 Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the federal "rights" allegedly violated were "clearly established." Barts v. … Instead, the question in this case, as in all qualified immunity cases, is fact specific: in May 1991, was it clearly established in this circuit that it was unconstitutional for a mental institution to fail to supervise

J.M. v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs.

286 F. Supp. 3d 745 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Dec 13, 2017

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 … The Court will begin with the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis-whether the rights Plaintiff claims the Individual Defendants violated were clearly established at the time of their actions.

Monique Wilkerson v. Thedious Seymour

736 F.3d 974 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 30, 2013

DISCUSSION “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials acting within their discretionary authority are immune from suit unless the official’s conduct violates clearly established federal statutory … To avoid summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, the plaintiff’s allegations, supported by admissible evidence, must demonstrate both (1) a constitutional violation and (2) that the violation was clearly established

Martínez-Rodríguez v. Guevara

551 F. Supp. 2d 142 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Nov 29, 2007

A three-step process exists for evaluating qualified immunity claims: 1) whether the claimant has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right; 2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the … are entitled to qualified immunity.

Reilly v. Vadlamudi

680 F.3d 617 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 25, 2012

Qualified immunity protects state officials, including prison employees, so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … In resolving qualified immunity claims, we ask whether: (1) the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, show a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) the right at issue was “clearly established” at the