Case law

Montana v. Patterson

894 S.W.2d 812 · Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District (Tyler) · Dec 28, 1994

Appellees claimed qualified or “good faith” immunity to actions brought under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 , and cited Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … Once the Appellees have asserted the qualified immunity and established that the alleged wrongful acts were taken within the scope of their discretionary authority, the burden then shifts to the Appellant to show that qualified

Michael Thomas Wilson v. Barry A. Kittoe, and Anthony S. Tokach

337 F.3d 392 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 22, 2003

Under the second prong of our qualified immunity analysis, we must determine whether the right alleged to have been violated was a “clearly established ... right[ ] of which a reasonable person would have known.” … For the foregoing reasons, Wilson has alleged the violation of a clearly established Fourth Amendment right. Accordingly, the district court’s denial of qualified immunity is affirmed. AFFIRMED 1 .

Ex Parte Colagross

674 So. 2d 1315 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Feb 9, 1996

McIntosh-Wilson, 582 So.2d 1058, 1061 (Ala.1991), Justice Adams wrote: "In their individual capacities, however, state officials may be liable for damages resulting from discretionary acts that violate `clearly established … In order to defeat a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff `bears the burden of showing that "the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions."'" 582

Guerrero v. Deane

750 F. Supp. 2d 631 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Oct 27, 2010

Qualified Immunity 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 a reasonable … For purposes of the clearly established inquiry, “[i]f the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.”

McGinnis v. District of Columbia

65 F. Supp. 3d 203 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 28, 2014

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity “‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Butera v. … “Clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand what he is doing violates that right.” Shaw, 944 F.

Burns v. PA Department of Corrections

642 F.3d 163 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 20, 2011

Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit even if their actions were unconstitutional as long as those officials‘ actions ―d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The burden of establishing qualified immunity falls to the official claiming it as a defense.

Hannah Robertson v. Anderson Mill Elementary

989 F.3d 282 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 2, 2021

Qualified immunity is a defense that “shields government officials from personal liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Brickey v. … needing to consider the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Gordon v. Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas

168 F. Supp. 3d 1148 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 10, 2016

The individual defendants 7 contend they are enti- *1156 tied to qualified immunity from Gordon’s § 1983 and § 1985 claims 8 because the conduct alleged fails to state a violation of a clearly established federal right of … But the former UALR employees — Norwood and Peterson— are also entitled to qualified immunity if Gordon fails to allege the deprivation of a constitutional right or the right was not clearly established.

Beier v. Lewiston, City Of

354 F.3d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 14, 2004

The Supreme Court reasoned that the consequences of such an argument would be "intolerable," because the qualified immunity right would be easily defeated as long as the complaint alleges violation of one clearly established … Clearly Established Right 43 " `[C]learly established' for purposes of qualified immunity means that `[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing

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.

Latetia Nunley v. Blayne Newton

117 F.4th 1059 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 25, 2024

at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … “[T]o determine whether [Newton] violated clearly established law, we need to know what happened.

Sharnick v. D'Archangelo

935 F. Supp. 2d 436 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 22, 2013

reasonable, as evaluated in the context of legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time.” … If the law was “clearly established, the [qualified] immunity defense ordinarily ... fail[s], since a reasonably competent official should know the law governing his conduct.” Harlow v.

James Byron Green v. Margaret Baron, Joan Wright, Sherri Shea, Dr. R.T. Lara, and Gary Kirchhof

925 F.2d 262 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 6, 1991

To determine if the employees are entitled to qualified immunity, we must first decide whether Green has invoked a constitutional right that was clearly established when the conduct in question occurred. See Harlow v. … Thus, when Green entered Oakdale, it was clearly established he could not be punished.

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

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

Crowson v. Washington County State, Utah

983 F.3d 1166 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 29, 2020

Merits Analysis “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … We therefore proceed directly to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the violation was clearly established.9 See 9 Mr. Crowson asserts that Dr.

Guite v. Wright

976 F. Supp. 866 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Sep 25, 1997

Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Any individual government officials performing discretionary functions have a qualified immunity defense to a Section 1983 claim for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … in the home, the entry violated clearly established law which a reasonable officer should have known.

May v. Fulton County, Ga.

925 F. Supp. 769 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 7, 1995

Qualified immunity may only preclude individual capacity claims. … For a court to find that a plaintiff was deprived of a clearly established right for the purpose of qualified immunity analysis, ‘“[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand

Matthew Locke v. County of Hubbard

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 17, 2025

While I disagree with the court’s constitutional analysis, I need not resolve that inquiry as the case can be easily resolved under the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See Pearson v. … This does not constitute a violation of a clearly established right; therefore, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

John Lanigan, Sr. v. Village of East Hazel Crest, Illinois, Officer Robert Wasek, Chief Ray Robertson

110 F.3d 467 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 28, 1997

Finally, the district court found that all three individual defendants were shielded from liability by qualified immunity because their conduct was not unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … Cournia set forth the test for qualified immunity as follows: First, the plaintiff must show that the law was clearly established when the challenged conduct occurred.