Case law

Frohmader v. Wayne

766 F. Supp. 909 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 7, 1991

Once a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff assumes the burden of showing that the defendant has violated clearly established law. Hannula, 907 F.2d at 131 . … The principles of qualified immunity entitle Wayne to summary judgment on the ground that, in light of the clearly established law governing the use of force, he could, as a matter of law, reasonably have believed that his

Santos v. Zabbara

984 F. Supp. 2d 106 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 28, 2013

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields Defendants, as “government officials performing discretionary functions,” from liability for damages under Section 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … “An officer conducting a search is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 243-44 , 129 S.Ct. 808 .

Barton v. Curtis

50 V.I. 783 · District Court, Virgin Islands · Nov 25, 2008

“Qualified immunity shields state officials from suit when their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Id. at 140 (quoting Harlow … the ‘constitutional issue’ and the second being ‘whether the right was clearly established.’ ” Id. at 601 .

Lintz v. Skipski

807 F. Supp. 1299 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Nov 25, 1992

However, the qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages liability provided their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Skipski violated a clearly established constitutional right. Therefore, her motion will be granted based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Moore v. Evans

124 N.C. App. 35 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 15, 1996

Generally, qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability for performing discretionary functions to the extent that such conduct “ ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … In order to establish the existence of an official’s right to the defense of qualified immunity, one must (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether that right was clearly established; and (

Lockridge v. Board Of Trustees, Of The University Of Arkansas

315 F.3d 1005 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 14, 2003

Jones was not entitled to qualified immunity. 3 On appeal, Dr. Jones contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Mr. … This court has broadly considered what constitutes "clearly established law" for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry. Sexton v. Martin, 210 F.3d 905 , 909 (8th Cir.2000); Boswell v.

Prince v. Sheriff of Carter County

28 F.4th 1033 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 14, 2022

immunity analysis with respect to Miller is whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established. … Because this right is clearly established in the context of Bowker’s specific conditions, Miller is not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.

Frank Snider, III v. Matthew Peters

752 F.3d 1149 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 30, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability and the burdens of litigation in a § 1983 action unless the official's conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable … ; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation."

Carey v. Inslee

364 F. Supp. 3d 1220 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 11, 2019

This does not mean that the subjective good faith defense is coextensive with qualified immunity. … For example, in a situation where a broad constitutional holding may or may not apply to a novel fact pattern, qualified immunity would apply if it was not "clearly established" that the holding extended to the new scenario

Baptist Health Medical Group, Inc. v. John Mitchell Farmer, M.D.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Nov 15, 2024

both bad faith and actual malice.4 Toler, 458 S.W.3d at 283. 4 We recognize that the term “qualified immunity” often refers to the doctrine of “qualified official immunity,” which is the immunity from tort liability … Farmer also did not show that Baptist Health intended to cause injury to him in violation of his clearly established rights.

Hopkins v. O'CONNOR

282 Conn. 821 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Jul 3, 2007

Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, supra, 272 Conn. 790 (noting that distinction between qualified immunity and absolute immunity is that persons protected by latter immunity are not hable for malicious “conduct and statements … Ed. 2d 288 (1967) (police officer sued for false arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 has only qualified immunity).

Ducksworth v. Landrum

62 F.4th 209 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 10, 2023

Here, as in all qualified immunity cases, the plaintiff must show (A) the violation of a constitutional right that (B) was clearly established at the time of the officers’ conduct. … Qualified immunity protects a law enforcement officer from personal liability in a lawsuit unless a plaintiff shows that the officer’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.

Gutierrez v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

437 Mass. 396 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Aug 2, 2002

Qualified immunity. … Although the defendants claim qualified immunity as to all claims, the only remaining claim to which qualified immunity may , apply is Daniella’s excessive force claim.

Hendricks v. New Albany Police Department

749 F. Supp. 2d 863 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 1, 2010

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not *870 violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The applicability of qualified immunity is determined by a two-part inquiry established in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).

Sidney Arnold v. Steven Williams

979 F.3d 262 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 23, 2020

pleading the defense of qualified immunity.’” … In this case, Arnold broadly addressed qualified immunity in his original complaint by alleging that Deputy Williams “knowingly violated” “clearly established law.”

Renee Gustafson v. William Adkins

803 F.3d 883 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 16, 2015

Adkins is Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity   Adkins  also  argues  that  the  district  court  erred  in  deny‐ ing his motion for summary judgment based on the defense  of qualified immunity.  … The  doctrine  of  qualified  immunity  “‘protects  govern‐ ment  officials  from  liability  for  civil  damages  when  their  conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or con‐ stitutional  rights  of  which

Carico v. Benton, Ireland, & Stovall

68 F. App'x 632 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 2003

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … clearly established.

Jared Fishman v. DC

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 11, 2026

The district court denied the officers qualified immunity, ruling that clearly established law required the officers to release Fishman before they did. … For qualified-immunity purposes, the question is whether the officers’ actions were so manifestly unreasonable as to violate clearly established Fourth Amendment principles.

Lawny Lamar Browning v. Richard A. Vernon, Director Ron McKinsey

44 F.3d 818 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 10, 1995

Vernon and McKinsey contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity from damages because the allegations in the complaint do not constitute violations of a clearly established liberty interest protected by the Due Process … clearly established?

Pierce v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections

284 F. Supp. 2d 811 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 28, 2003

Of course, the qualified immunity inquiry asks whether the constitutional right advocated by the plaintiff is clearly established, not whether a defendant’s conduct is not clearly established. … The test for whether a right is clearly established was set out by the Supreme Court: “[C]learly established rights, for purpose of qualified immunity, are ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which