Case law

Burdeshaw v. Snell

350 F. Supp. 2d 944 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 4, 2004

Federal Claims and Qualified Immunity 1. General Principles Snell has pled the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … Under the second prong, the court must determine whether the applicable law was clearly established at the time of the challenged action, that is, whether the defendant would have violated a clearly established right under

Contreras v. Dona Ana County Board

965 F.3d 1114 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 20, 2020

So I join Chief Judge Tymkovich’s opinion as far as it addresses the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … A court holds, as the Eleventh Circuit did, that the officer is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate any clearly established rights. See Corbitt v.

Douglas v. Miller

864 F. Supp. 2d 1205 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 30, 2012

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability in federal claims unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … clearly established at the time.”

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.

Ernesto Nunez v. Luiz Izquierdo-Mora, Etc.

834 F.2d 19 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 30, 1987

not “clearly established.” … Thus, it was not clearly established that this position was protected from political discharge. The judgment of the district court in respect to the issue of qualified immunity is Reversed. 1 .

Smith v. Kenny

678 F. Supp. 2d 1093 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jul 24, 2009

to qualified immunity. … issue of qualified immunity.

Evenstad v. State

178 Ariz. 578 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Aug 5, 1993

We agree with appellants that the qualified immunity provisions of A.R.S. section 12-820.02 do not apply to the duty of MVD to prescribe rules and regulations. … Clearly, MVD may be held liable for the grossly negligent issuance of drivers’ licenses. See § 12-820.02(5); Bird, 170 Ariz. at 23 , 821 P.2d at 290 (dicta) (qualified immunity applies to issuance of driver’s license).

Herman Runge v. David Dove, Henry Kosters, in Their Individual and Official Capacities and the Douglas School District 51-1

857 F.2d 469 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 19, 1988

Finally, qualified immunity is conceptually distinct from the merits of the suit because it addresses a question of law: whether the law clearly established the impermissibility of the defendant’s actions at the time they … Qualified Immunity Dove and Kosters claim that, as a legal matter, they are entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects government officials from unsubstantial suits and harassing litigation, Harlow v.

Sloan v. Dulak

868 F. Supp. 2d 535 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Apr 11, 2012

Qualified immunity protects public officials, including police officers, facing liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Going on to address whether the officer was nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not “clearly established,” the First Circuit further stated that “[a] reasonable officer .... would not have needed

Texas A&M University Texas A&M University System Dr. Jerry Gaston And Eugene Ray v. Don Thompson

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Dec 18, 2003

Appellants assert the protection of sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and quasi-judicial or official immunity against Thompson's numerous claims. … The plaintiff must show that (1) the official's conduct violated a federally guaranteed right, (2) the right was clearly established, and (3) the official's conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established

Tate v. Fish

347 F. Supp. 2d 1049 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 17, 2004

Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, governmental officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate clearly … Due to the purposes behind qualified immunity, the court “reviews summary judgment orders deciding qualified immunity questions differently from other summary judgment decisions.” Olsen v.

Norris v. Engles

494 F.3d 634 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 9, 2007

“If so, then we determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time.” Id. “If either question is answered in the negative, the public official is entitled to qualified immunity.” … a constitutional violation, we need not consider whether her constitutional right to due process was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Marc Barrera v. City of Mount Pleasant, Mich.

12 F.4th 617 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 3, 2021

The other possibility is that the ambiguity in state law shows that the officers did not violate a clearly established right—the second prong of the qualified immunity test. … He has not shown that they violated clearly established law that would pierce the officers’ qualified immunity shield.

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

Derek Thomas v. Jacqueline Carmichael

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 23, 2026

To defeat a qualified immunity defense, in addition to showing that the defendant official was deliber- ately indifferent to the plaintiff’s serious medical need, the plaintiff must establish that the right was clearly established … plaintiff’s clearly established right.

Derek Thomas v. Jacqueline Carmichael

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 23, 2026

To defeat a qualified immunity defense, in addition to showing that the defendant official was deliber- ately indifferent to the plaintiff’s serious medical need, the plaintiff must establish that the right was clearly established … plaintiff’s clearly established right.

Couser v. Somers

District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 1, 2019

Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694–95 (1978) (establishing standard under § 1983 for when a municipality may be held liable for the unconstitutional acts of its employee(s)). A. … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991) (“One of the purposes of immunity, absolute or qualified, is to spare a defendant not only unwarranted liability, but unwarranted demands customarily imposed upon those defending

Levon Brooks v. Steven Hayne

860 F.3d 819 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 27, 2017

asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” 10 4 Brooks’ state law claims against Dr. … Qualified immunity is a complete defense, and Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity unless Plaintiffs can show triable issues as to whether Defendants violated a clearly established

Bombard v. Volp

44 F. Supp. 3d 514 · District Court, D. Vermont · Sep 8, 2014

Qualified Immunity Officer Volp has also moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … An assertion of qualified immunity requires a court to determine “(1) whether plaintiff has shown facts making out [a] violation of a constitutional right; (2) if so, whether that right was ‘clearly established’; and (3)

United States v. Albert Tantalo

680 F.2d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 3, 1982

Defense counsel urged that since the appellant had provided immunized testimony before the grand jury, the Government was called upon to present evidence to the court to establish not only an independent basis for the indictment … The district court’s ruling which upheld the indictments, without calling upon the government to establish that the evidence it proposed to present at the trial was untainted by the appellant’s immunized testimony, was in