Case law

Doyle v. Rondout Valley Central School District

3 A.D.3d 669 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 15, 2004

“A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her conduct does *671 not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … To be entitled to qualified immunity, Seals was required to establish that it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his conduct was appropriate under the circumstances, or that officers of reasonable competence

McCullough v. Wyandanch Union Free School District

187 F.3d 272 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 30, 1999

Qualified Immunity Pecorale argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity on appellee’s First Amendment claim because Constitutional protection of appellee’s speech, in these circumstances, was not clearly established … Where there is a “total absence of evidence of retaliation,” there is no basis on which to conclude that the defendant seeking qualified immunity violated clearly established law. Gubitosi v.

Rucker v. Johnson

724 F. Supp. 568 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 29, 1989

If the law supporting such relief was not clearly established as of May 1988, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987); Rakovich v. … Wykoff 's unsupported holding did not clearly establish the law, especially in light of the other precedents discussed. [5] Defendants, therefore would be qualifiedly immune.

Rasul v. Rumsfeld

433 F. Supp. 2d 58 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 8, 2006

Furthermore, because the defendants’ alleged actions violate rights clearly established at the time the defendants allegedly committed them, they are not entitled to any qualified immunity. … The Defendants Are Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity The defendants argue that even if RFRA applies in GTMO, that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because its application in GTMO was not clearly established

Jason Findlay v. Jon Lendermon

722 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 14, 2013

Because Findlay has not carried his burden of showing the violation of a clearly established right, Lendermon is entitled to qualified immunity. I. Background A. … But qualified immunity requires the plaintiff to produce a case “clearly establish[ing] [the right] in a particularized sense, rather than in an abstract or general sense.” Abbott v.

Shontay Humphries v. Milwaukee Coun

702 F.3d 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 26, 2012

The Supreme Court held in Pearson that a court may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not “clearly established” by prior case law without first resolving whether the purported right exists. … As the plaintiff, Humphries has the burden of defeating the qualified immunity defense that the defen- dants raised, so she must show that the due process right she asserts was clearly established by prior case law.

Dawn Hanson v. Chris LeVan

967 F.3d 584 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 21, 2020

Ultimately, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate based on qualified immunity only when the plaintiffs’ well‐ pleaded allegations, taken as true, do not “state a claim of vi‐ olation of clearly established law.” … that the plaintiffs stated a claim for a violation of a clearly established right, barring qualified immunity at this point in the litigation.

Philip W.L. Lum v. Raymond Jensen, Robert Drake, and the State of California

876 F.2d 1385 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 31, 1989

They asserted the defense of qualified immunity on the ground that they had violated no clearly established constitutional right. … They contend that because there was no clearly established right, they were entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. 1 DISCUSSION I.

Henry v. Purnell

501 F.3d 374 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 20, 2007

PURNELL 3 Qualified immunity shields government officials performing dis- cretionary functions "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Because an official "who performs an act clearly established to be beyond the scope of his discre- tionary authority is not entitled to claim qualified immunity," the defen- dant bears the initial burden "of demonstrating

Robinson v. Pack

223 W. Va. 828 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 18, 2009

In that decision, we affirmed that immunity from personal liability exists “if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known.” … In the context of determining whether there is a violation of clearly established right to overcome qualified immunity, purpose rather than knowledge is required to impose Bivens liability on the subordinate for unconstitutional

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jun 23, 1994

immunity in federal court. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (stating that the test of qualified immunity for individual officers turns upon the "objective legal reasonableness of the action" assessed in light of the legal rules that were "clearly established

Migneault v. Peck

158 F.3d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 23, 1998

Henney’s actions violated clearly established law. The district court rejected Dr. Henney’s argument, ruling she was not entitled to qualified immunity. In doing so, the court found Ms. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from suit when their conduct does not “‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Checker Cab Phila. v. Phila. Parking Auth.

306 F. Supp. 3d 748 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 2018

"The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was 'clearly established' at the time of the violation." Id. at 1866 . … because the right asserted was not clearly established.

Doe v. University Of Mississippi

361 F. Supp. 3d 597 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Jan 16, 2019

Section 1983 Claims Finally, Murry and Ussery assert qualified immunity as to Doe's individual-capacity § 1983 claims against them. … An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

Luethje v. Kyle

131 F.4th 1179 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 19, 2025

Thus, “‘[g]eneral statements of the law’ can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes if they apply ‘with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question.’” Halley v. … Luethje’s constitutional rights and the violation was clearly established, they are not entitled to qualified immunity as to the unlawful search claim. C.

Shockency v. Ramsey County

493 F.3d 941 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 12, 2007

Qualified immunity protects state officials from civil liability for actions that “do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Sexton v. … We conclude that the law on these issues was clearly established, and the district court did not err in concluding that Fletcher was not entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Tawana Henderson v. City of Woodbury

909 F.3d 933 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 28, 2018

“When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff must produce evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the defendant violated a clearly established right … Qualified immunity is inappropriate if “the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and . . . that right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct

Mark Shane Bishop v. Deputy Dale Glazier

723 F.3d 957 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 30, 2013

was clearly established. … Glazier is thus entitled to qualified immunity, because he did not violate Bishop’s then clearly established constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. See LaCross, 713 F.3d at 1158.

Brandie Cunningham v. Wood County

983 F.3d 185 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 18, 2020

Citing factual disputes, and holding that Cunningham’s right to a name-clearing hearing was clearly established, the district court denied qualified immunity on summary judgment. … Qualified immunity’s clearly established prong was met, the district court reasoned, because Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 (1971), and Bledsoe v.

Goldbarth v. Kansas State Board of Regents

269 Kan. 881 · Supreme Court of Kansas · Jul 26, 2000

His claims implicate issues of immunity. We focus on qualified immunity. Qualified immunity shields public officials from personal liability unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights. … In other words, the officials did not violate any clearly established law when they applied the sexual harassment policy to Cohen. Clearly Bowman and Patton are entitled to qualified immunity.