Case law

Jennings v. Jones

479 F.3d 110 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 7, 2007

Prong Two: Whether the Law Was Clearly Established The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis asks "whether the constitutional right . . . was 'clearly established' at the time of the incident such … established' when assessing claims of qualified immunity" (quoting Medina v.

Megan McGuire v. Cory Cooper

952 F.3d 918 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 6, 2020

“Summary judgment ‘determinations are appealable when they resolve a dispute concerning an abstract issue of law relating to qualified immunity–typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly … Qualified immunity is a doctrine that “shields a government official from liability unless his conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

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.

Wolfenbarger v. Williams

826 F.2d 930 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 3, 1987

In this appeal, the defendants make three arguments in support of their claim of qualified immunity. First, they urge that Wolfenbarger’s property interest was not clearly established. … They maintain that while it is now clearly established that Wolfenbarger has a property interest in the stereo items, it was not clearly established at the time.

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

State of West Virginia ex rel. West Virginia Attorney-General, Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, and Nathan R. Lyle, in his Individual Capacity, and in his Capacity as an Employee of the West Virginia Attorney-General Medicaid Fraud Control Unit v. The Honorable Kenneth D. Ballard, Judge of the Circuit Court of Kanwaha County, and Hisel Bailey, and West Virginia Attorney-General, Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, and Nathan R. Lyle, in his Individual Capacity, and in his Capacity as an Employee of the West Virginia Attorney-General Medicaid Fraud Control Unit v. Hisel Bailey

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 9, 2023

Ed. 2d 272 (2001) (establishing that qualified immunity may only be overcome if the facts alleged “show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right”). … When discretionary acts are the basis for a claim of liability, qualified immunity applies unless clearly established and reasonably known rights or laws have been violated, or the subject conduct is fraudulent, malicious

Walt v. State

751 P.2d 1345 · Alaska Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1988

on the qualified immunity defense. … Haley, 687 P.2d 305 at 316 (Alaska 1984), is entitled to qualified immunity unless his action violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

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.

Bustillos v. City of Artesia

98 F.4th 1022 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 17, 2024

Officer Bailey counters by asserting qualified immunity. A. Mr. Bustillos must prove the violation of a clearly established right. … Once a defendant asserts qualified immunity, “the plaintiff must establish (1) the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s

Bouye v. Marshall

102 F. Supp. 2d 1357 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 21, 2000

“Qualified immunity shields government officials executing discretionary responsibilities from civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To overcome qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must show that: (1) Marshall violated a federal constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Santamorena v.

Lodico v. United States

571 F. Supp. 21 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 3, 1982

In Harlow , the Court held that presidential aides are entitled only to a qualified immunity. It then expanded somewhat the scope of the qualified immunity. … Accordingly, these individual defendants are now immune from liability unless their actions violated “clearly established” constitutional rights.

Eaton v. Meneley

180 F. Supp. 2d 1247 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 9, 2002

immunity from suit on plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims because plaintiffs have not alleged facts which establish that he violated any of their clearly established rights. … Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court eliminated the subjective, or intent, element of qualified immunity, and held that a plaintiff could defeat a claim of qualified immunity only by demonstrating that the defendant violated clearly

Roberson v. Mullins

876 F. Supp. 100 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jan 30, 1995

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when they perform discretionary functions, unless their acts violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … “Faced with such uncertainty, it may be preferable to err on the side of caution and ... find qualified immunity where [the court] cannot confidently state that the right was clearly established or that the officials must

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.

Conti v. Village of Quogue

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 20, 2024

Because that use of force does not violate clearly established law, Officer Comito is entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s excessive-force claim. … Qualified immunity attaches “when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

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.”

Eaton v. Meneley

379 F.3d 949 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 3, 2004

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Finally, we are able to turn to the central issue in the case against Meneley on qualified immunity, which is whether the plaintiffs’ allegations, as construed in the light most favorable to them, would establish a violation

Veney v. Ojeda

321 F. Supp. 2d 733 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 15, 2004

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability for alleged civil rights violations to the extent the officials’ “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If no constitutional violation is found, qualified immunity is clearly unnecessary, as plaintiffs underlying constitutional claim simply fails.

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.

Fernandors v. District of Columbia

382 F. Supp. 2d 63 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 15, 2005

Stressing the threshold nature of the qualified immunity inquiry, the Court observed as follows: A necessary concomitant to the determination of whether the constitutional right asserted by a plaintiff is “clearly established … Therefore, the only question for the Court is whether Officer Fenton’s alleged conduct violated plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights so that he would not have qualified immunity.