Case law

Thomas Bowden v. Vernon Martin

807 F.3d 877 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 25, 2015

Public officials are immune from suit if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … We need not address the separate question of whether any infringed right was clearly established, although we note that the qualified immunity inquiry is not identical to the question of probable cause: an official enjoys

J.C. Bass v. United States Department of Agriculture

737 F.2d 1408 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 6, 1984

The crux of Bass’s argument to the court during this discussion was that if it were shown that the defendants had violated clearly established law, the defendants would be unable to rely upon qualified immunity as a defense … Since a question of fact existed as to whether the defendants had violated clearly established law, the district court properly gave instructions on qualified immunity based on the contingency that the jury might find that

Chico Scrap Metal, Inc. v. Raphael

830 F. Supp. 2d 966 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 23, 2011

The 11th Amendment does not bar this claim. c) Qualified Immunity Defendants finally argue that they are immune from suit in this instance because of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials sued in their individual capacity from monetary damages, unless their conduct violates “clearly established” law that would be known to a reasonable public officer

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.

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

Deon Johnston v. Deputy Sean M. Carlson

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 14, 2025

Qualified immunity protects police officers from liability for civil damages if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Put another way, “the arguable probable cause inquiry in a false arrest case is no different from the clearly established law inquiry in any other qualified immunity case.

Lockard v. CITY OF LAWRENCEBURG, IND.

815 F. Supp. 2d 1034 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 6, 2011

In the end, the Seventh Circuit did not reach the clearly established prong for purposes of determining qualified immunity. Id. at 377 . Moreover, at the time of Mr. … Nonetheless, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, relying on the “clearly established” qualified immunity prong. Id.

Morris v. Jackson

353 F. Supp. 2d 1199 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jan 10, 2005

However, qualified immunity does extend to this decision. … Qualified immunity protects § 1983 defendants from liability for injury arising from discretionary acts as long as the acts do not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Taylor v. City of New York

269 F. Supp. 2d 68 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 23, 2003

To overcome the qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must first “allege a violation of a clearly-established constitutional or statutory right. … Since plaintiff has plainly alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Curry v.

Falto de Roman v. Municipal Government of Mayaguez

267 F. Supp. 3d 357 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 3, 2016

The qualified immunity doctrine “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … which bear on the issue of qualified immunity”).

Glass v. Mayas

794 F. Supp. 470 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 16, 1992

in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … Gilley, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 1793 , 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991) (where the defense of qualified immunity is involved, the initial inquiry should focus on whether plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established

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

Davis v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 512

335 F. Supp. 3d 1230 · District Court, D. Kansas · Aug 15, 2018

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because at the time of the alleged violation, the law did not clearly establish that reassigning plaintiff to teach at SMW constituted adverse … To defeat the qualified immunity defense, plaintiff must show that on the facts of this case, the law clearly established that the reassigning her to teach at SMW constituted adverse employment action.

Williams v. Prince George's County

112 Md. App. 526 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 1996

Because of these considerations, immunity is granted to officers who act reasonably, albeit mistakenly, in light of clearly established law and the information they possessed without the benefit of hindsight. … immunity because their actions were in conformity with “clearly established” legal rules.

Basile v. Elizabethtown Area School District

61 F. Supp. 2d 392 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 1999

The Supreme Court established the standard for qualified immunity in Harlow v. … (a) were clearly established.

Brenda Cook v. Amos Taylor

Court of Appeals of Mississippi · Feb 22, 2021

“Waiver is a matter of law where the material facts and circumstances are undisputed or clearly established.” Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr. v. Hampton, 227 So. 3d 1138, 1141 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Bott v. … 9 judgment based upon a qualified immunity affirmative defense.

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.

Corral v. Montgomery County

4 F. Supp. 3d 739 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 5, 2014

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to Section 1983 claims and “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability.

Grady v. Becker

907 F. Supp. 2d 975 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Nov 13, 2012

Qualified immunity principles Qualified immunity insulates government officials from suit when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … These cases simply highlight that the law in the Eighth Circuit was not clearly established prior to Chambers . Cf.

Dominguez v. Correctional Medical Services

555 F.3d 543 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 17, 2009

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly' established statutory … Clearly Established Right “For a right to be clearly established, ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what [she] is doing violates that right.’ ” Feathers