Case law

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.

Blevins v. Denny

114 N.C. App. 766 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 17, 1994

Similarly, the Court concluded that denial of a public official’s claim of qualified immunity from suit, to the extent that it turns on the legal questions of whether the conduct complained of violated “clearly established … In Mitchell , the United States Supreme Court went on to explain that entitlement [to qualified immunity] is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively

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.

Prokey v. Watkins

942 F.2d 67 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 19, 1991

The general rule of qualified immunity, set out in Harlow v. … Explaining the Harlow standard, the Court said that, [ujnless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the

Lory Lombardo v. John F. Harvey, Sandy Jenkin, Cathy Smolkovich

865 F.2d 259 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 12, 1988

of the clearly established law and information he possessed). 9 Procedurally, this Circuit has placed the burden on the plaintiff once the issue of qualified immunity is raised: 10 Where a defendant official is entitled … to qualified immunity, the plaintiff must plead facts which, if true, describe a violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable public official, under an objective standard would

Blaylock v. Schwinden

862 F.2d 1352 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 7, 1988

Moreover, plaintiffs were clearly seeking damages from the public treasury. … A state indemnification statute does not automatically extend immunity to state officials. See Demery v.

The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley v. Paul C. Kavanaugh

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Feb 23, 2023

Kavanaugh responded that the record supported his contrary assertion that he was clearly better qualified for the position than Perez. … Normally, the plaintiff’s longer tenure with the employer would not establish that he was clearly better qualified than the selected candidate. See Martinez v.

Robert P. Brennan v. Township of Northville, Lawrence Demeter and Fred Yankee, Individually and in Their Official Capacities

78 F.3d 1152 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 26, 1996

Lawrence Demeter and Fred Yankee appeal the denial of qualified immunity in this action premised on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … II A denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds may be reviewed on interlocutory appeal under Mitchell v.

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.

Landon Michael v. Joshua Trevena

899 F.3d 528 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 7, 2018

"[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was 'clearly established at the time.' " District … In this case, neither party disputes the clearly-established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Henry Lavado, Jr. v. Patrick W. Keohane

992 F.2d 601 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 22, 1993

The prison officials again respond that they are entitled to qualified immunity because “[t]here is ... no clearly established law holding that a prisoner has a constitutional right to have his legal related mail opened only … whether the officers did acts which violate clearly established rights.”); Pecsi v.

Olufemi Anthony Lukan v. North Forest Isd, Gloria S. Scott, L v. Brisco

183 F.3d 342 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 27, 1999

First, if the official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, the official is entitled to qualified immunity. See Jones v. Collins, 132 F.3d 1048, 1052 (5th Cir.1998). … Second, even if the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable. See id.

James T. Martin, Jr. v. D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, Richard Xander, James T. Martin, Jr. v. D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, Richard Xander

812 F.2d 1425 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 8, 1987

(footnotes omitted); Mitchell, 105 S.Ct. at 2816 (defendant entitled to dismissal on qualified immunity plea unless plaintiff states a claim of violation of clearly established law). … Harlow, 457 U.S. at 817-18 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 . 23 The "clearly established law" and "objective reasonableness" facets of current qualified immunity doctrine tug in opposite directions where, as here, the "clearly established

Ricciuti v. New York City Transit Authority

796 F. Supp. 84 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 4, 1992

have been thought consistent with the rights they are alleged to have violated” in light of clearly established law____ [T]he dismissal of a claim against an officer asserting qualified immunity in no way logically entails … They can do so by establishing a good faith, qualified immunity defense. This good faith defense is not available to the municipality.

Tubar v. Clift

286 F. App'x 348 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 11, 2008

Qualified immunity protects government officials acting in their official capacities from civil liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights of which a “reasonable” official … In Saucier, the Supreme Court imposed a specific, sequential analysis for determining whether qualified immunity is warranted.

Pena v. Deprisco

432 F.3d 98 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 9, 2005

Qualified Immunity: Was the Constitutional Right Clearly Established? … Although it is a close question, we think that the substantive due process violation that the plaintiffs allege here was not clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Bennett v. Murphy

274 F.3d 133 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 2, 2002

that claims of qualified immunity are to be evaluated using a two-step process. … immunity claim move to the second step of the analysis to determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established.

Flint ex rel. Flint v. Kentucky Department of Corrections

270 F.3d 340 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 26, 2001

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established’ statutory … violating a clearly established right of Flint’s.

Machelle Pearson v. MDOC

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 26, 2026

It also held that they could seek damages because the complaint alleged a violation of clearly established law to overcome any qualified-immunity defense. See id. at *5–6. … The Inmates also contend that they may rely on the clearly established “right to safe and sanitary conditions” to overcome qualified immunity. Appellees’ Br. 27.

John Young v. Mercer County Commission

849 F.3d 728 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 27, 2017

“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 a reasonable person … “[C]ourts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law, without resolving the often more difficult question whether the purported right exists at all.”