Case law

Ferguson v. Hall

33 F. Supp. 2d 608 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jan 28, 1999

A government official is not entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct results in the violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. … To withstand a motion for summary judgment based on a claim of qualified immunity in the Sixth Circuit, a plaintiff must establish two things.

Vance v. Wade

546 F.3d 774 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 17, 2008

“According to the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … defendant did acts that violated clearly established rights.”

Jesus Hernandez v. Unknown Named Agents, et

785 F.3d 117 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 24, 2015

That is the chore of the first prong of the qualified-immunity test, which we do not address. The alleged right at issue was not clearly established, under these facts, in 2010. The judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED. … We hold unanimously that Agent Mesa has qualified immunity from this suit for a Fifth Amendment substantive due process violation because he did not violate any clearly established rights flowing from that Amendment.

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.

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

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.’”

James Terry, Jr. v. City of New Orleans

609 F.3d 757 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 21, 2010

Jurisdiction and Standard of Review “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Based on these principles, the Warden’s conduct did not violate clearly established law.

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

Ross Anthony Smith and Michael Bodak v. Mark Garretto, Individually

147 F.3d 91 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 3, 1998

Qualified immunity protects a governmental official from suit for any actions that did not violate a clearly established constitutional right and those actions as to which the official had an objectively reasonable good faith … The first inquiry to be made concerning qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff has “allege[d] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Siegert 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.

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.

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

Muhammed Kenyatta v. Roy K. Moore, James O. Ingram and Thomas Fitzpatrick

744 F.2d 1179 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 29, 1984

In Harlow the Supreme Court simplified the qualified immunity defense, jettisoning the previous requirement of good faith, and announced a simple objective standard; whether a defendant violated “clearly established” law … As we have explained above, the Harlow Court eliminated the subjective prong from analysis of qualified immunity; what remains is the question whether the agents’ actions violated rights clearly established at the time.

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.

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

Willson v. Cagle

711 F. Supp. 1521 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 22, 1988

clearly established constitutional rights. … However, the Harlow opinion also clearly states that qualified immunity is available only to "government officials performing discretionary functions." Id.

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.”

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.

Parkulo v. West Virginia Board of Probation & Parole

199 W. Va. 161 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1997

for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known. … acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official 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