Case law

McClendon v. May

37 F. Supp. 2d 1371 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Feb 3, 1999

James, 157 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir.1998) establishes the current test for qualified immunity in the Eleventh Circuit. … Finally, an unofficial opinion of a state attorney general, even if it had been issued before the conduct occurred, would not constitute clearly established law for qualified immunity purposes.

Arizmendi-Corales v. Javier Rivera

176 F. Supp. 2d 114 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 19, 2001

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right which should have been … If no violation of a clearly established constitutional right is found, then the analysis halts because “there is qualified immunity.” Aponte Matos v. Toledo Davila, 135 F.3d 182, 187 (1st Cir.1998).

Martinez v. New York City Tr. Auth.

2022 NY Slip Op 00252 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 13, 2022

At the same time, we find that the TA was not entitled to pretrial dismissal of the complaint on the basis of qualified immunity. … In that case, the Court of Appeals emphasized that a governmental body claiming qualified immunity based on its having studied a particular condition alleged to have caused injury must establish that the study was indeed

Battiste v. Rojeski

257 F. Supp. 2d 957 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · May 12, 2003

To determine the issue of qualified immunity, I must determine first, whether the officer’s alleged conduct violated a constitutional right; and if so, whether that right was clearly established. Saucier v. … Even if a right is clearly established, defendants are still entitled to qualified immunity if their actions were reasonable. See Anderson v.

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.

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.

Ontiveros v. City of Rosenberg, Tex.

564 F.3d 379 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 30, 2009

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. … In order to evaluate the “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity test, the court must ask whether, at the time of the incident, the law clearly established that such conduct would violate the right.

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.

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

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

Brenda Albert v. City of Wheeling

238 W. Va. 129 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Oct 27, 2016

Therefore, unless there is a bona fide dispute as to the foundational or historical facts that underlie the immunity determination, the ultimate questions of statutory or qualified immunity are ripe for summary disposition … To decide otherwise would risk further erosion of “well-established common law and statutory immunities which are vital to the proper functioning] of government.”

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

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

Golden Rule Insurance v. Long

113 N.C. App. 187 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 23, 1993

In order to defeat the qualified immunity, plaintiff had to show that defendant violated some clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … This standard determines if further proceedings are barred by qualified immunity by examining the law in existence at the time of the offense to determine if it contained “clearly established . . . rights of which a reasonable

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

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.

(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.”

Doe v. LaDue

514 F. Supp. 2d 1131 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Sep 4, 2007

Plaintiffs allege that the OPD’s proactive monitoring approach violated Doe’s clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure 2 and that defendants are not entitled to qualified … As the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable. search and seizure is a well-established right, even for predatory offender registrants, qualified immunity does not protect the defendant officers. Cf.

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.