Case law

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.

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.

Frye v. Hodges

839 F. Supp. 2d 843 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Dec 30, 2011

“Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal-capacity liability for civil damages under § 1983, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … To overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff in a § 1983 case must show that the defendant’s action deprived the plaintiff of a protected constitutional right and that the right was so clearly established at the

Grancid Camilo-Robles v. Jose R. Zapata, A/K/A Jose R. Zapata-Rivera

175 F.3d 41 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 20, 1999

Because of its focus on tort causation and culpability, the qualified immunity analysis in neglect-of-risk cases seldom, if ever, raises abstract questions of law about whether a right was clearly established. … We concluded that the applicable law, and, hence, the plaintiffs’ asserted right, was clearly established by *46 1993.

Jane Doe v. Gayle Bowles Richard Kemp Ronald Stratton

254 F.3d 617 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 19, 2001

The Sixth Circuit has explained that in order for a court to deny qualified immunity to a § 1983 defendant, the plaintiff “must establish that [defendant’s] conduct violated a federal right so clearly established that any … Provided that there are no disputed issues of material fact precluding jurisdiction, qualified immunity must be granted by this court if, as a matter of law, defendants’ conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional

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.

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.

Ringuette v. City of Fall River

146 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 5, 1998

Mass. 1995), but several claims were reserved for trial, and the issue of qualified immunity was not resolved. … violated clearly established law.

Nolin v. Isbell

207 F.3d 1253 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 28, 2000

In this case, like Sheth , Appellant accepts Appellee’s version of the events and argues those facts do not demonstrate a violation of clearly established law. 1 This Court conducts a de novo review of qualified immunity … Qualified immunity protects from civil liability government officials who perform discretionary functions if the conduct of the officials does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

(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.”

Curtis Morton v. City of Little Rock Phillip Wilson, and Ronnie Gatewood, Individually and in Their Official Capacities

934 F.2d 180 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 30, 1991

, (3) Wilson’s misconduct was negligent rather than intentional, and (4) plaintiff’s claims against Gatewood in his individual capacity were barred by qualified immunity and quasi-judicial immunity. … To avoid summary judgment based on qualified immunity, plaintiff must show that at the time of Gatewood's action or inaction, the specific right at issue was so clearly established that any reasonable law enforcement officer

Shelton v. Angelone

148 F. Supp. 2d 670 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 21, 2001

“If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-819 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 . … To be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Anderson v.

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

Morrison v. Horseshoe Casino

157 N.E.3d 406 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 2020

Additionally, the defendant officers asserted that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the appellants’ Section 1983 claim because their conduct “did not violate a clearly established federal right which a reasonable … Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden to overcome the qualified immunity and establish the deprivation of a federally protected constitutional right.

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

Escalera-Saldado v. United States

261 F. Supp. 3d 163 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 26, 2016

The qualified immunity doctrine “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 … To do so, the plaintiff must show that (1) “defendants violated a statutory or constitutional right,” and that (2) “the right was clearly established at the time.” Morales, 794 F.3d at 214 .

Owens v. Colburn

860 F. Supp. 966 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 26, 1994

"Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages ... as long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.” Mozzochi v. … It also seems that once you have determined the need for the defense of [qualified immunity], ... the officer has acted unreasonably ... and has violated clearly established law.”) see also Graham, 490 U.S. at 399 n. 12,

Tejada Batista v. Fuentes Agostini

247 F. Supp. 2d 73 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 23, 2003

ANALYSIS Defendants generally argue that as a matter of law the case should be dismissed because they are shielded from liability pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability when they perform discretionary functions as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Johnson v. Perry

859 F.3d 156 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 8, 2017

was clearly established at 9 the time of the challenged conduct." … Against a background of clearly 2 established law, the availability of qualified immunity "generally turns on the [defendant's conduct's] 3 'objective legal reasonableness.'" Anderson v.

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