Case law

West Virginia Lottery v. A-1 Amusement, Inc.

807 S.E.2d 760 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 13, 2017

Therefore, even if the State purchases a policy of insurance, a state agency and its official may claim immunities under the common law, such as qualified immunity. 70 Pursuant to this analysis, qualified immunity is available … qualified immunity in this context.

Catlin v. City of Wheaton

574 F.3d 361 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 21, 2009

Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that (1) the facts make out a violation of the plaintiffs federal rights, and (2) the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct

Demster v. City of Lenexa, Kan.

359 F. Supp. 2d 1182 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 16, 2005

The court dismissed this claim after finding that defendants were shielded by qualified immunity. … Once a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, the court employs a two-part test.

Cross v. Mokwa

547 F.3d 890 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 14, 2008

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … the plaintiffs clearly established federal rights.”

Clement v. Gomez

298 F.3d 898 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 6, 2002

Resolving the issue of qualified immunity involves a two-step inquiry. … Clearly Established Law The qualified immunity analysis requires us to further consider whether the rights of the prisoners in this case were clearly established at the time of *906 incident.

Dean v. Blumenthal

577 F.3d 60 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 11, 2009

We hold that all requested relief, other than damages, is moot and that appellee is entitled to qualified immunity from damages because there was no clearly established right under the First Amendment to receive campaign … We also hold that appellee Richard Blumenthal is entitled to qualified immunity from Dean’s claim for damages because there was no clearly established right under the First Amendment to receive campaign contributions during

McCaslin v. Wilkins

17 F. Supp. 2d 840 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 10, 1998

A court must measure the objective reasonableness of a Defendant’s conduct by reference to clearly established law. “No other ‘circumstances’ are relevant to the issue of qualified immunity.” Davis v. … that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Pride v. Kansas Highway Patrol

793 F. Supp. 279 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 1, 1992

of the law that was clearly established at the time of the offensive conduct. … Because the threshold requirement of establishing a constitutional violation is not met, the qualified immunity analysis necessarily terminates at this point.

Allen L. Nicklasson v. Don Roper, Warden, Potosi Correctional Center

491 F.3d 830 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 21, 2007

A state court decision involves an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law if, in the federal court’s independent judgment “the relevant state-court decision [not only] applied clearly established federal … Nicklasson therefore argues that the issues presented represent an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law set forth in Morgan v.

Johari v. City of Columbus Police Department

186 F. Supp. 2d 821 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 23, 2002

Where a defendant moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff first must “identify a clearly established right alleged to have been violated” and second, “establish that a reasonable officer in the … The burden then shifts “to the plaintiff to establish that the defendant[’]s conduct violated a right so clearly established that any official in the defendant[’]s position [ ] would have clearly understood that [he] w[as

Boyd v. Benton County

374 F.3d 773 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 28, 2004

Qualified Immunity The Supreme Court has established a two-part analysis for determining whether qualified immunity is appropriate in a suit against an officer for an alleged violation of a constitutional right. … Consequently, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because Boyd’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from dangerous flash-bang devices under these circumstances was not clearly established. B.

Bever v. Gilbertson

724 F.2d 1083 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 11, 1984

By eliminating the subjective component of the qualified immunity claim, the Supreme Court clearly intended to facilitate disposition of claims of qualified immunity on summary judgment motions, but one must read much into … A public official, clothed with qualified immunity, is not required to anticipate future development of constitutional doctrine, but he is required to respect the established constitutional rights of others.

Shelley v. County of San Joaquin

954 F. Supp. 2d 999 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 27, 2013

of qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity “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 rights of which

Larry Richardson v. Nathan Falk

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 6, 2026

clearly established. … Because Falk did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, he is entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Beauregard v. Olson

84 F.3d 1402 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 12, 1996

Pelletier, --- U.S. ----, ---- 116 S.Ct. 834, 842, 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996), to decide the core qualified immunity question of whether it was clearly established before Olson acted that he could not lawfully fire these … This case is not the exceptional case where the individual defendant is unentitled to qualified immunity: it was not clearly established at the time Olson acted that firing Plaintiffs was unlawful.

Stephen C. Stem v. Ralph Ahearn and Chris Card

908 F.2d 1 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 13, 1990

To hold the child protective services workers personally liable here, Stem must pierce the qualified immunity that they inherently enjoy by demonstrating that the workers breached “clearly established statutory or constitutional … We rejected the TDHS workers’ claim of entitlement to absolute immunity, however, for fear of immunizing intentional violations of clearly established law.

Melody Cooper v. Officer James Doyle

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 30, 2025

a right was not clearly established.” … Nevertheless, “[a] right need not be recognized by a court in a specific factual context before such right may be considered ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity.” See Wilson v.

Eugene Burns v. County Of Cambria

971 F.2d 1015 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 28, 1992

Finally, in considering the qualified immunity defense of the two Roberts defendants, the court held that they were not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. Id. II. … Clearly Established Standard 44 Roberts argues, however, that it was not clearly established at the time of these dismissals that deputy sheriffs, as distinguished from other public officials, were indeed protected under

Olsen v. Layton Hills Mall

312 F.3d 1304 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 11, 2002

or statutory right was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred. … If so, we must subsequently ask “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. If the plaintiff does not satisfy either portion of the two-pronged test, the Court must grant the defendant qualified immunity. Gross v.

Melba J. Burrell v. The Board of Trustees of Ga. Military College, Jacob L. Goldstein, Etc., and Alva L. Baggarly, Etc., Melba J. Burrell v. The Bd. Of Trustees of Ga. Military College, Alva L. Baggarly, Individually & in His Official Capacity as Chief Exec. Officer of First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. Of Milledgeville, the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Milledgeville and Unknown Co-Conspirators, James E. Baugh, Indiv. & in His Official Capacities as Mayor of the City of Milledgeville, Ga. & Chairman of the Bd. Of Tr. Of Ga. Military College, Jacob L. Goldstein, Indiv. & in His Official Capacities as a Member of the Bd. Of Dir. Of First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. Of Milledgeville & as a Member of the Bd. Of Tr. Of Ga. Military College, Melba J. Burrell v. The Board of Trustees of Ga. Military College, James E. Baugh, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Ga. Military College, Jacob L. Goldstein, as a Member of the Board of Trustees of Ga. Military College, and the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Milledgeville, Alva L. Baggarly, Etc.

970 F.2d 785 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 29, 1992

facts, if true, constitute a violation of clearly established law by the defendant[s]." … B. 45 In part II B., we established that public officials cannot assert qualified immunity against a section 1985(3) claim.