Case law

Jarvis v. WEST VIRGINIA STATE POLICE

227 W. Va. 472 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 18, 2010

Postponing review of a ruling denying immunity to the post-trial stage is fruitless ... because the underlying objective in any immunity determination (absolute or qualified) is immunity from suit. … How could any court ever conclude that the general concepts of negligence do not constitute clearly established law?

Norman v. Ingle

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 15, 2025

When a defendant appeals a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity, we “have interlocutory jurisdiction to determine whether [the plaintiff’s] summary judgment facts state a claim under clearly established … has the burden of showing that qualified immunity is unavailable because they violated at least one clearly established constitutional right.

Rhodes v. Smithers

939 F. Supp. 1256 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 15, 1995

Qualified Immunity. … Qualified Immunity.

Gordon v. Frank

454 F.3d 858 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 21, 2006

The intentional delay by these officers shows deliberate disregard sufficient to reject qualified immunity. 17 Qualified immunity still protects officers accused of violating a right if the right is not clearly established … A denial of summary judgment may be treated as a final order when based on qualified immunity, but only to decide whether a certain point of law is "clearly established." Sanders 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

Kenney v. Hawaii

109 F. Supp. 2d 1271 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Jul 31, 2000

To determine whether a defendant is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, a court must (1) identify the right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation … That right is clearly established. See Kelley, 60 F.3d at 667 .

Cardall v. Thompson

845 F. Supp. 2d 1182 · District Court, D. Utah · Jan 11, 2012

After the defendant contends that qualified immunity applies, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant violated his rights, as protected by clearly established law. V-1 Oil Co. v. … Clearly Established Even if the decision to tase Brian was unconstitutional, summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is still appropriate if the unconstitutionality of the tasing was not “clearly established”

Michael Durham v. David Horner

690 F.3d 183 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 8, 2012

Hence, our qualified immunity defense involves a “two-step” inquiry, asking “first whether a constitutional violation occurred and second whether the right violated was clearly established.” Id. … Having concluded that Durham has no "viable § 1983 claim, we need not determine whether any rights [he] asserted were 'clearly established' for purposes of qualified immunity.” See Lambert v.

Brown v. City of Huntsville, Ala.

608 F.3d 724 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 7, 2010

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Courts utilize a two-part framework to evaluate qualified immunity claims.14 One inquiry in a qualified immunity analysis is whether the plaintiff’s allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation. Hope v.

Starlight Sugar, Inc. v. Soto

253 F.3d 137 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 11, 2001

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1981), the district court identified a two-part test for determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity: (1) whether the law was clearly established at the time the action was … When determining whether a constitutional right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, state,4 as well as federal, decisions can be considered. See Cinelli v.

Broam v. Bogan

320 F.3d 1023 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 25, 2003

, or the constitutional right was not clearly established on the date of the alleged violation. … “[Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Kane v. Lewis

989 F. Supp. 2d 468 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 20, 2013

However, the principle itself — as well as its purposes to protect the safety of the officers and the occupants— could not be more clearly established. … Of course, as to plaintiff's state law claim, there is no qualified immunity at all. .

3502 Partners LLC v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth.

2026 NY Slip Op 01118 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 26, 2026

Plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed amendment was not palpably insufficient or clearly devoid of merit ( see MBIA Ins. Corp. v Greystone & Co., Inc. , 74 AD3d 499, 499-500 [1st Dept 2010]). … In any event, defendants have failed to make a sufficient showing that all of them would be immune from punitive damages, and there is no dispute that one of them — Tutor Perini Corporation — does not qualify as a public

Curtis Henderson v. Michael P. Lane and J. Gallassi, Curtis Henderson v. Michael P. Lane and J. Gallassi

979 F.2d 466 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 13, 1992

An official is entitled to qualified immunity when his actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Williams v. … Thus, there is no “clearly established” right to more than one hour of exercise per week, and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Unzueta v. Steele

291 F. Supp. 2d 1230 · District Court, D. Kansas · Oct 29, 2003

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. … City of Laramie, 239 F.3d 1183, 1189-90 (10th Cir.2001) (finding qualified immunity for officers who hog-tied an arrestee with diminished capacity because in 1996 there was not a clearly established right to be free from

Cornejo v. Bell

592 F.3d 121 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 4, 2010

Even qualified immunity, however, is sufficient to shield executive employees from civil liability under § 1983 if either “(1) their conduct ‘did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have … known,’ or (2) ‘it was objectively reasonable to believe that [their] acts did not violate these clearly established rights.’ ” Young v.

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

Edward Wilhelm v. John A. Boggs, Deputy, and Joseph Tanner, Deputy

290 F.3d 822 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 22, 2002

issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established.” … established law?

Melvin Alexander, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated v. Lamar Alexander, Governor

706 F.2d 751 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 3, 1983

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at-, 102 S.Ct. at 2737, and proving either that the law was not clearly established at the time of plaintiff’s alleged injury, or, if the law was clearly established, that he neither knew nor should have

Martinez v. Mathis

970 F. Supp. 1047 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Mar 31, 1997

“If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” … “For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government