Case law

Roth v. Guzman

650 F.3d 603 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 13, 2011

Qualified immunity protects government officials and employees performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Relying on the Eleventh Circuit decision in Collier affirming the denial of qualified immunity to state officials for disclosures under the DPPA, the district court concluded that the plain language of the DPPA clearly established

McGrath v. Scott

250 F. Supp. 2d 1218 · District Court, D. Arizona · Mar 12, 2003

In Harlow , the Supreme Court established the test for qualified immunity as whether the official violated “clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Here, State Defendants asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. Therefore, the burden of persuasion shifted to Plaintiff to establish a violation of a clearly established federal right.

Ellis v. Salt Lake City Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 5, 2025

was clearly established. … The second qualified immunity prong asks whether the law in question was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s conduct.

Tomashek v. Raleigh Cnty. Emergency Operating Ctr.

344 F. Supp. 3d 869 · United States District Court · Sep 26, 2018

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, "[g]overnmental officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for money damages so long 'as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … As such, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the violation of a constitutional right, and Meadows and Johnson are entitled to qualified immunity. The court need not address whether the right was clearly established.

Seal Tite Corp. v. Bressi

312 N.J. Super. 532 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 19, 1998

could be afforded on the basis of qualified, rather than absolute, privilege or immunity. … The individual defendants are entitled at least to the protection of qualified immunity, even if the absolute immunity afforded for legislative acts is deemed inapplicable.

John Meyers v. City of Cincinnati, Scott Johnson, Individually and as City Manager David E. Rager, Individually and as Director of Safety

979 F.2d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 12, 1992

This immunity is premised upon sound policy grounds: where governmental officials have duties that “legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated, the public interest may be better served … Our reasoning in that opinion establishes that the contours of public employee speech were by no means “clearly established” in early 1988. Rather, we referred to the “current somewhat imprecise standard.”

Wilbert Glover v. R. Paul

78 F.4th 1019 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 24, 2023

On appeal, Paul maintains that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects governmental officials from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless a plaintiff shows that the official’s alleged conduct violated a clearly established right of the plaintiff. See Harlow v.

Eaton v. Estabrook

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 9, 2025

immunity because it was not clearly established at the time that his actions were unconstitutional. … Qualified immunity applies unless (1) the official violated the plaintiff’s statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that “right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” Ricciuti v.

Levi Wilson v. Scott Lamp

901 F.3d 981 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 28, 2018

They agree that this court may review the denial of qualified immunity if the issue “is a purely legal one: whether the facts alleged . . . support a claim of violation of clearly established law.” See Pace v. … Government actors have qualified immunity as a shield against litigation if their actions do not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Hudgins v. City Of Ashburn

890 F.2d 396 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 24, 1990

The Zeigler/Rich Analysis for Determining Summary Judgment Based on Qualified Immunity 29 Rich recognized that the Supreme Court established its objective-reasonableness test for determining qualified or good-faith immunity … or not that law is clearly established.

Sammy Ussery v. Mansfield

786 F.3d 332 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 19, 2015

As the parties agree, the law clearly established at the time of the extraction governs the entitlement to qualified immunity here. Further, they agree that Norman v. … summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity would be entirely unreviewable if the defendant officers conceded that Ussery’s version of the facts would establish that the officers violated clearly established law.

Sheila Hensley v. Ronald Gassman

693 F.3d 681 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 11, 2012

Fourth Amendment Claim The standards for determining qualified immunity are well-established. … Clearly Established Rights The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis asks whether the right was clearly established.

Roberts v. Lipson

231 Ga. 142 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Sep 6, 1973

from taxation or regulation should not be interpreted as including that immunity.” … It is well established in this state that exemptions from taxation must be strictly construed, "and the exemption will not be held to be conferred unless the terms under which it is granted clearly and distinctly show that

Dellairo v. Garland

222 F. Supp. 2d 86 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 4, 2002

Rennie, 264 F.3d 86, 113 (1st Cir.2001) (“Qualified immunity protects state actors ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In other words, it is possible that Garland violated Dellairo’s clearly established constitutional rights but is immune from suit because it was objectively reasonable for him to do so because the unlawfulness of his actions

Morales v. City of New York

59 F. Supp. 3d 573 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 6, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil suits for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Applying those standards here, there is no question that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Mary Sallenger, as the Administrator of the Estate of Andrew B. Sallenger, Deceased v. Brian Oakes, James Zimmerman, and Jason Oliver

473 F.3d 731 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 10, 2007

If the right was clearly established, the government actor is not entitled to qualified immunity. … If the right was not clearly established, the officers are still entitled to qualified immunity.

Mary Zapata v. Manuel Barba

750 F.3d 481 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 18, 2014

established constitutional rights. … “Consequently, this court has established a careful procedure under which a district court may defer its qualified immunity ruling if further factual development is necessary to ascertain the availability of that defense.

Shemtov Michtavi v. William Scism

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 14, 2015

Appellants appeal that order, and we conclude that they are entitled to qualified immunity because a prisoner’s right to treatment of retrograde ejaculation, infertility, or erectile dysfunction is not clearly established … She also concluded that the Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because Eighth Amendment jurisprudence clearly establishes that prison officials may not be indifferent to a serious medical need.

Greenwood v. New York

163 F.3d 119 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 11, 1998

. § 1983 ; it did so on the ground that the officials had qualified immunity. 1 We disagree with the court’s conclusion that Greenwood’s property right in his clinical staff privileges was not *121 clearly established and … “Even defendants who violate [clearly established] constitutional rights enjoy a qualified immunity that protects them from liability for damages unless it is further demonstrated that their conduct was unreasonable under

Cannavino v. Rock Ohio Caesars Cleveland, L.L.C.

2017 Ohio 380 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 2017

Williams contends that he is shielded from such claims under qualified immunity. … if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”