Case law

Estate of Hammers v. Douglas Cnty.

303 F. Supp. 3d 1134 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 28, 2018

Defendants argue Undersheriff Massey is entitled to qualified immunity, because the law was not clearly established that any of his actions violated the constitution. … While it is indeed clearly established that correctional facilities must provide adequate medical care to its inmates, it is not "clearly established"-for purposes of qualified immunity-that Undersheriff Massey's policies

Mallas v. Kolak

721 F. Supp. 748 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 13, 1989

of their qualified immunity. … Moreover, the court finds that officials sued for constitutional violations which are not clearly established do not lose their qualified immunity merely because their conduct also violates some statutory or administrative

Zitta v. Graham

996 F. Supp. 2d 272 · District Court, D. Vermont · Jan 24, 2014

As long as the conduct was “objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken,” qualified immunity applies. Id. … As explained above, Officer Graham is entitled to qualified immunity because the point at which an officer’s conduct reaches state action in these circumstances has not been clearly established.

AerSale, Inc. v. The City of Roswell, New Mexico

District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 25, 2024

However, this is precisely the “high level of generality” at which “clearly established” may not be defined for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis. … Christopher is entitled to qualified immunity on AerSale’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims based on the absence of clearly established law, it necessarily follows that he is also entitled to qualified immunity on

Shepard v. Irving

204 F. Supp. 2d 902 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 5, 2002

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages in Section 1983 actions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … a clearly established right of which Defendants should have known.

Michael Kent v. County of Oakland

810 F.3d 384 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 6, 2016

The district court found that the deputies’ use of the taser was objectively unreasonable and violated clearly established law, and it denied the deputies’ motion for summary judgment on qualified and governmental immunity … Rather, “a defendant denied qualified immunity may appeal ... *390 [only] if the issue on appeal is whether the plaintiffs, facts, taken at their best, show that the defendant violated clearly established law.”

Kaylor v. Rankin

356 F. Supp. 2d 839 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 4, 2005

Qualified Immunity: Federal Law Qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Rankin and Radde contend they are entitled to qualified immunity because they violated no clearly established constitutional right of which they were or reasonably should have been aware.

Acklin v. City of Inkster

93 F. Supp. 3d 778 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 20, 2015

Specifically, the Defendants contend they should be entitled to qualified immunity because they contend they did not violate any statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established and of which a reasonable person … As discussed, Acklin’s Fourth Amendment claim for excessive force while handcuffed is “clearly established;” thus, Plaintiff meets that prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See Meirthew, 417 Fed.Appx. at 499 .

Raju v. Rhodes

809 F. Supp. 1229 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Nov 20, 1992

Consequently, in assessing defendant’s right to qualified immunity, the court must determine “whether any of these claims rests upon such clearly established law that the defendant^ ha[s] forfeited [his] qualified immunity … Raju cannot establish, in order to overcome Dr. Rhodes’ qualified immunity, the violation of a clearly established constitutional right in regard to his substantive due process claim. C.

Dang v. Ehredt

95 Wash. App. 670 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 17, 1999

were lawful in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed. 12 The standard is one of objective legal reasonableness, that is, whether the officer acted reasonably under settled law under the … Dang’s assertion that the issue of qualified immunity merges with the issue of probable cause, so that a finding that an officer lacked probable cause to arrest is dispositive of the issue of qualified immunity. 12 Anderson

Bowen Ex Rel. Estate of Bowen v. Warden, Baldwin State Prison

826 F.3d 1312 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 22, 2016

Finally, the three defendant officials maintained that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they were acting within their discretionary authority and their conduct was not in violation of clearly established … and Officer Davis are “not entitled to qualified immunity by showing that the facts alleged make out a violation of a constitutional right and that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of [the]

Arlene Martin v. Dana Marriner, Arlene Martin v. Dana Marriner

904 F.2d 120 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 8, 1990

Nonetheless, it held that the FmHA officials were entitled to qualified immunity. 825 F.2d at 1553-54 . … Culbreath, 799 F.2d at 1250 (right to notice of an alternative proceeding to an FmHA liquidation not clearly established).

George v. Morris

736 F.3d 829 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 30, 2013

Concluding that the deputies had not argued for its application, the court did not address the second prong of qualified immunity — the clearly established inquiry. … Our decision on the clearly established issue does not prevent the deputies from appropriately raising the second prong of qualified immunity at 1 a subsequent stage in the litigation, such as in a Rule 50 motion for 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.”

Spinelli

District Court, D. Colorado · Oct 24, 2025

As Imbler and its progeny establish, absolute prosecutorial immunity is intended to protect the judicial process, not the prosecutor. See Briscoe v. … App'x at 705 (discerning no absolute immunity where prosecutors allegedly fabricated evidence “for the purpose of establishing probable cause”).

Moore v. Williamsburg Regional Hospital

560 F.3d 166 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 12, 2009

Holloway, 510 U.S. 510, 514 (1994) ("The cen- tral purpose of affording public officials qualified immunity from suit is to protect them ‘from undue interference with their duties and from potentially disabling threats of … These claims fail because, even if plain- tiff established the other elements of the torts, plaintiff has not presented evidence sufficient to establish that defendants’ actions were without justification or were for an improper

Richard Fields v. City of Philadelphia

862 F.3d 353 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 7, 2017

Katz, the Supreme Court held that courts must determine whether a constitutional right existed before deciding if it had been “clearly established” such that defendants would not be entitled to qualified immunity. 533 U.S … Government actors are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violated a constitutional right “so clearly established *361 that ‘every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right

Rodriguez v. Swartz

111 F. Supp. 3d 1025 · District Court, D. Arizona · Jul 9, 2015

Should this Court hold that J.A. was protected by either or both Amendments, Swartz asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity because J.A.’s rights pursuant to the Fourth or Fifth Amendments were not clearly established … Further, the Court finds that J.A.’s rights were clearly established when Swartz seized him such that Swartz is not entitled to assert qualified immunity.

Peppers v. Coates

694 F. Supp. 1562 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 30, 1988

If plaintiff’s allegations prove true, then Cozart has violated clearly established constitutional rights and he is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Therefore, Ewing is not entitled to qualified immunity.

State v. Jones

298 Kan. 324 · Supreme Court of Kansas · Nov 8, 2013

It gave content to the prerequisites for claiming K.S.A. 21-3219 immunity; it did not dictate procedure or the lack of it. Jones also attempts to draw an analogy to qualified immunity for government officials. … But, to tire extent such a comparison is sound, an issue we do not decide today, qualified immunity is waived if it is not raised early in a case as an affirmative defense. See Bentley v.