Case law

Bernard Coady v. Russell Steil

187 F.3d 727 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 9, 1999

immunity because, if the plaintiff had a constitutional right, it was not clearly established on March 18, 1995. … If Steil violated a clearly established constitutional right “of which a reasonable person would have known,” then he may not claim qualified *734 immunity from suit. See Harlow v.

Delgado v. Miami-Dade County

456 F. Supp. 2d 1234 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 9, 2006

For a right to be “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes, previous case law must have developed it in a concrete factual context so as to make it obvious to a reasonable government actor that his actions violate … The Court finds that Officer David Riley is entitled to qualified immunity.

Pritchard v. Arvon

186 W. Va. 445 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1991

Such employee immunity is consistent generally with the political subdivision’s qualified immunity, and the employee immunity is reasonable in scope because the Act imposes employee liability for tort damages proximately … Clearly, the Act is reasonable in furthering the purpose for which it was enacted.

Gregory Yancey v. Carroll County, Ky.

876 F.2d 1238 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 27, 1989

A court may dismiss a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against government officials on summary judgment if the undisputed facts show that “defendants’ conduct, as a matter of law, did not violate clearly established constitutional … Therefore, the district court was correct in holding that as a matter of law, these defendants’ conduct had not violated “clearly established constitutional rights.”

Scott Drewry v. William Brenner, Individually, and In His Official Capacity as Chief of Police; and the Town of Greybull

2025 WY 121 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Nov 6, 2025

The doctrine of qualified immunity precludes Mr. … We conclude Chief Brenner has established that he acted in good faith for the purposes of qualified immunity. [¶26] Differences of opinion are similarly immaterial when applying the reasonableness element.

Mitchell Alicea v. Aubrey Thomas

815 F.3d 283 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 1, 2016

Grant of Qualified Immunity Improper Alicea further argues that the district court erred in grant- ing qualified immunity to both officers. … The doctrine of qual- ified immunity protects government officials from liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statu- tory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Pleasants v. Town of Louisa

847 F. Supp. 2d 864 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 12, 2012

I commence my inquiry into Rigs-by’s entitlement to qualified immunity by determining whether Ms. Pleasants claims the violation of a right that was clearly established under the circumstances. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 643 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987), an outcome often created by the "clearly established” component of the qualified immunity inquiry, see Lisa R. Eskow & Kevin W.

Archuleta v. Wagner

523 F.3d 1278 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 29, 2008

Archuleta’s clearly established constitutional rights because Ms. … “[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

El-Ghazzawy v. Berthiaume

636 F.3d 452 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 15, 2011

“Qualified immunity shields a public official . . . from civil lawsuits when her conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Doe v. … In analyzing qualified immunity, we ascertain (1) whether the facts alleged, construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, establish a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether such right was clearly

Logan v. City of Pullman

392 F. Supp. 2d 1246 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 4, 2005

The Supreme Court has established a two-part analysis for determining whether qualified immunity is appropriate in a suit against an officer. … In the absence of binding precedent, the Court looks to whatever law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, including decisions of state courts, other circuits, and

(PC) McNeil v. Toor

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 2, 2024

Qualified Immunity 28 In the alternative, Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity because there 1 is not clearly established case law that provided Defendants … ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant's alleged 6 misconduct.”

W. Va. Dept. of Transportation, DMV v. David King, Administrator of the Estate of Wilma Ann King

238 W. Va. 369 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 15, 2016

ANALYSIS This case involves our law of qualified immunity. … Peyton’s driver’s license, the DMV is not entitled to qualified immunity under the facts of this case.

Ivonne Padilla v. Peter Mason and Jaeson Jones

Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Jul 28, 2005

Qualified immunity shields an officer if a reasonable officer could have believed the action to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed. Hunter v. … Because there was no clearly established rule which would prohibit Mason from using the force that he did, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Riggs v. City of Pearland

177 F.R.D. 395 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 17, 1997

The Fifth Circuit has also developed a two-step process for the examination of a claim of qualified immunity. The first inquiry is whether Plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Again, the defense of qualified immunity is a bar to denial of medical care claims unless Plaintiffs demonstrate that Defendants’ conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law existing at that time

Felak v. United States

677 F. Supp. 606 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jan 11, 1988

The complaint does not specifically allege facts which show a violation of a clearly established right and plaintiff has not submitted a responsive memorandum to the summary judgment motion. … Therefore, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

Dube v. State University of New York

900 F.2d 587 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 12, 1990

Dube’s file and the standards applicable at Stony Brook and in light of clearly established law” ... is not an answer to Dr. Dube’s claim. Summary judgment is therefore denied based on the qualified immunity defense. … Analysis It is well established that qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Fenwick v. United States of America

926 F. Supp. 2d 201 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 1, 2013

Fenwick’s clearly established rights. The Court therefore does not find the defendants entitled to qualified immunity at this juncture. 1. … Clearly Established Right With respect to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, it was clearly established at the time of this incident that shooting a fleeing suspect who is not presently

Doores v. McNamara

476 F. Supp. 987 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Sep 21, 1979

Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 247 , 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1692 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90, 103 (1974) established the standard when a defendant is entitled to this qualified immunity: [A] qualified immunity is available to officers of the executive … However, the mere fact that the defendant must establish that he is entitled to this qualified immunity does not mean that he is not entitled to a directed verdict. In Dellums v.

Greenberg v. Kmetko

840 F.2d 467 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 9, 1988

The defendants submit on appeal that they should be shielded from liability by qualified immunity. … A fortiori, constitutional protection for such expressions was not clearly established in 1976.

Subryan v. Regents of the University of Colorado

813 F. Supp. 753 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 19, 1993

Qualified immunity allows a public official to escape liability if his conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … official violated the clearly established law.