Case law

Dallas Independent School District v. Finlan

27 S.W.3d 220 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Oct 3, 2000

Qualified Immunity Analysis Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, which shields them from liability for civil damages, if “their conduct does not violate … Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue.

Curley v. Klem

298 F.3d 271 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 2, 2002

If a court concludes that an officer's conduct did violate a clearly established constItutional right, then it must deny him the ~rotection afforded by qualified immunity. See id. at 2156-57. … immunity issues early in the litigation is in tension with the reality that factual disputes often need to be resolved before determining whether the defendant's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right

Opinion Number

Louisiana Attorney General Reports · Sep 13, 2002

The defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the beginning of discovery if the plaintiff's allegations do not state a claim of violation of clearly established law. Harlow v. … Further, the defendants have clearly carried their burden of pleading qualified immunity.

Westfahl v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 4, 2015

Qualified Immunity Defendants first contend that Officer Robinson is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Westfahl’s excessive-force claim. … “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff” shows “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’

Nation v. State, Dept. of Correction

144 Idaho 177 · Idaho Supreme Court · Mar 29, 2007

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Next, did the conduct of the party asserting qualified immunity violate a clearly established right of the party claiming the violation? Finally, was the conduct of the party asserting qualified immunity reasonable?

Mary Estep v. Police Officer Mackey

639 F. App'x 870 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 12, 2016

This “collateral-order doctrine” allows us to review certain orders that deny a defendant’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds because qualified immunity “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Keating v. University of South Dakota

980 F. Supp. 2d 1137 · District Court, D. South Dakota · Sep 30, 2013

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, state actors are protected from civil liability when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … The second step in the qualified immunity inquiry is to determine whether Keating’s free speech right was clearly established at the time his contract was not renewed. See Sexton, 210 F.3d at 910.

Steven Gillman v. City of Troy, Mich.

126 F.4th 1152 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 22, 2025

Qualified Immunity Green-Hernandez begins by contesting the district court’s order denying her motion for summary judgment on her qualified immunity defense. … “A public official is entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the challenged conduct did not violate ‘clearly established . . . constitutional

Marshall Spiegel v. Joseph Cortese, Detective, and James Hennelly and Holly Zielke

196 F.3d 717 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 14, 2000

Qualified immunity shields from liability government officials who are performing discretionary functions in the course of duty to the extent that their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … clearly established at the time in question.”

Morris Rodgers v. John Jabe, Jerry Hofbauer, and Robin Pratt, in Their Individual and Official Capacities

43 F.3d 1082 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 12, 1995

were entitled to qualified immunity because the amount of exercise to which prisoners had a right was not clearly established at the time of the defendants’ actions. … Most importantly, the magistrate judge denied qualified immunity because the relevant law was “clearly established” by August 29, 1991. Hofbauer and Pratt objected to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

Martino v. Hogan

37 Mass. App. Ct. 710 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Dec 13, 1994

The defendants answered with denials and defenses including the defense of “qualified immunity.” … Finally, even were it assumed that the constitutional rule was “clearly established” and violated, so that qualified immunity did not attach, the defendants could be held individually liable for damages for the infractions

Baldwin v. Estherville, Iowa

218 F. Supp. 3d 987 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Nov 18, 2016

In the alternative, the defendants argue that Officers Reineke and Hellickson are entitled to qualified immunity, because it was not *997 clearly established that, when the City incorporated Iowa Code Ch. 321 into the City … . “ ‘Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability and the burdens of litigation in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which

Texas Department of Public Safety v. Tanner

928 S.W.2d 731 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Aug 21, 1996

Like Hullum and DPS, we use the term "qualified immunity” when referring to the federal defense and "official immunity” when referring to the state defense. 3 . … Furthermore, Hullum did not move for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity to the section 1983 claim.

Williams v. Brown

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 4, 2022

Defendant Gulick argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff has not stated a constitutional deprivation and, even assuming that he did, the implicated right was not clearly established. … Qualified immunity requires a two-pronged analysis: “whether the plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for violation of a constitutional or statutory right and whether the right was clearly established at the time of

Hebert v. State

165 Vt. 557 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Apr 18, 1996

Under federal law, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … In Hall , for example, the court held that “[i]t was clearly established in 1986 that police officers could not be deliberately indifferent to a detainee who is in need of medical attention because of a mental illness or

Verdecia v. United States

327 F.3d 1171 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 29, 2003

a violation of clearly established law, this Court may properly exercise jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal”). … This court, however, “reviews summary judgment orders deciding qualified immunity questions differently from other summary judgment decisions” because of the purposes behind qualified immunity. Holland v.

Smith v. Plati

56 F. Supp. 2d 1195 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jul 22, 1999

law was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred.” … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Sand v. Steele

218 F. Supp. 2d 788 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Aug 15, 2002

As has been ruled consistently in the past: The doctrine of good faith qualified immunity shields government employees performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless their conduct violates clearly established … “The doctrine of good faith qualified immunity shields government employees performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Batton v. Mashburn

107 F. Supp. 3d 1191 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 12, 2015

Qualified immunity shields from liability government officials performing discretionary functions “if their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable government official would have known.” … Because Plaintiff has alleged the violation of his right of association and this right was clearly established at the time of his termination, Mashburn is not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to this claim. 5 B

Wullschleger v. Peters

28 F. Supp. 2d 549 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Nov 20, 1998

a qualified immunity defense if they prove that their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Qualified immunity is a question of law.