Case law

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.

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.

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

Keith v. Koerner

707 F.3d 1185 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 12, 2013

was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … Koerner qualified immunity. -9- Nevertheless, because we affirm the denial of qualified immunity, we do not reach this issue.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Alicia T. v. County of Los Angeles

222 Cal. App. 3d 869 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 23, 1990

The County insists the law clearly provides absolute immunity for the conduct in issue here. “Qualified or ‘good faith’ immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded by a defendant official. [Citation.]” … “Qualified immunity shields only that conduct not violative of clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

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.

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

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

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

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.

Reynolds v. Smythe

418 F. Supp. 2d 724 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2006

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has enunciated the qualified immunity inquiry as follows: “First, we must determine whether the defendants violated ‘clearly established’ rights. … Saucier instructs lower courts to examine whether a constitutional right was clearly established in the second-prong of a two-prong qualified immunity inquiry, whereas Harvey examines whether defendants violated a clearly