Case law

Kurtz v. Denniston

872 F. Supp. 631 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Dec 19, 1994

Delo, 999 F.2d 364, 366 (8th Cir.1993) (first step in qualified immunity analysis was determination of whether conduct violated any clearly established right). … special religious diet is clearly established.

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.

Derfus v. City of Chicago

42 F. Supp. 3d 888 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 20, 2014

Qualified immunity requires a court to assess “the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v. … City of Chicago, 242 F.3d 737 , 742 (7th Cir.2001) (“qualified immunity is dissolved * * * when the conduct is so egregious that no reasonable person could have believed that it would not violate clearly established rights

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

Akers v. Caperton

998 F.2d 220 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 29, 1993

(“[A] core issue in resolving the immunity defense is whether state officials violated clearly established legal norms_ Thus, the availability of qualified immunity overlaps substantially the question on the merits of the … Because the defendants’ actions did not violate “clearly established” law at the time of the transfers — and did, in fact, comply with this Circuit’s established law— the district court’s qualified immunity ruling must be

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.

Rogers v. Gooding

84 F. App'x 473 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 24, 2003

Qualified Immunity for the Excessive Force Charges Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … not violate any clearly established principles.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

Easterling v. Pollard

528 F. App'x 653 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 22, 2013

The individual defendants are protected by the defense of qualified immunity: The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … The general principles of First Amendment law we have discussed were clearly established in 2010, but the qualified immunity defense turns on whether the application of those principles to the circumstances faced by the defen

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.

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

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?