Case law

Rome v. Romero

225 F.R.D. 640 · District Court, D. Colorado · Nov 22, 2004

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages under § 1983 when their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Even where a qualified immunity defense is asserted, some limited discovery is still permitted.

Hike v. Hall

427 N.W.2d 158 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jul 20, 1988

Conversely, in situations in which assistant state’s attorneys’ activities are not quasi-judicial and consequently are clothed only with qualified immunity, that qualified immunity applies as well to a claim that the state … of liberty ... the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor’s immunity would disserve the broader public interest.

Oliverio Martinez v. City of Oxnard Oxnard Police Department Art Lopez, Chief Maria Pena Andrew Salinas Ron Zavala, and Ben Chavez

270 F.3d 852 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 30, 2001

Qualified immunity shields them “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … We must now determine whether the rights that Martinez alleges Chavez violated were clearly established by federal law.

Robert D. Mastroianni v. Michael J. Bowers, Patrick D. Deering, Joe B. Jackson, Jr., Weyland Yeomans

74 F.3d 236 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 5, 1996

immunity as a defense, and (2) the issue on appeal is whether the undisputed facts show a violation of clearly established law. … to determining whether the law supposedly violated was clearly established.

Mglej v. Garfield County

974 F.3d 1151 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 9, 2020

Once Gardner asserted qualified immunity, it was Mglej’s burden to show “that (1) the officers’ alleged conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the violation, … The district court, therefore, did not err in denying Deputy Gardner qualified immunity on this excessive force claim.13 13 The clearly established Fourth Amendment violation that Mglej has alleged is that Deputy Gardner

French v. Merrill

15 F.4th 116 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 1, 2021

Hence, the officers - 34 - violated clearly established law and are not entitled to qualified immunity. C. … qualified immunity

Dorsett-Felicelli, Inc. v. County of Clinton

371 F. Supp. 2d 183 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 1, 2005

Even if the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, however, a defendant will still be entitled to qualified immunity if the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established … County Defendants would still be entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct was -objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law.

Cornelius v. La Croix

631 F. Supp. 610 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Apr 3, 1986

Qualified Immunity David La Croix asserts that as a matter of law he is entitled to qualified immunity from the damages awarded against him in this case. Mr. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity as it now stands, the issue is whether the challenged conduct violated clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Gerhart v. McLendon

714 F. App'x 327 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 25, 2017

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity unless a plaintiff can show “(1) that the official violated a statutory' or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged … The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the officer’s failure to do so violated clearly established law and that he was not entitled to qualified immunity. See id. at 955-56 .

Griswold v. Alabama Department of Industrial Relations

903 F. Supp. 1492 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 10, 1995

Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … In light of this finding, the supervisors’ entitlement to qualified immunity depends upon whether Griswold’s allegations implicate a constitutional right clearly established at the time of the alleged wrongful activities.

Latoya Aaron v. Darren King

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 1, 2026

Qualified immunity shields officials from lawsuits for money damages unless they violated clearly established constitutional rights. Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664 (2012). … But Aaron’s cases, yet again, turn on materially different facts and thus fail to provide the kind of clearly established law needed to pierce qualified immunity. In Champion v.

Dotson v. City of Youngstown, Ohio

76 F. Supp. 2d 810 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 17, 1999

DISCUSSION Defendant Chaibi contends he is entitled to summary judgment under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The plaintiff has the burden of proof to establish that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. See Wegener v. City of Covington, 933 F.2d 390, 392 (6th Cir.1991).

Pruitt v. West Virginia Department of Public Safety

222 W. Va. 290 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 3, 2008

to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known. … Accordingly, under Chase Securities, Trooper Kane would enjoy immunity from personal liability for official acts if his conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known and

Robinson v. City and County of Denver

39 F. Supp. 2d 1257 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 26, 1999

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability under section 1983 where their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Was the Constitutional Right Clearly Established?

Marilyn Centanni v. Eight Unknown Officers

15 F.3d 587 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 3, 1994

In addition to establishing a constitutional violation, a plaintiff must show that the right in question was “clearly established” to overcome a defense of qualified immunity. … immunity because clearly established law renders such action unconstitutional. 1 .

Peach County School District v. Austin

322 Ga. App. 368 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jun 20, 2013

Sovereign immunity is not an affirmative defense that must be established by the party seeking its protection. … Moreover, qualified immunity is an entitlement not to stand trial, rather than a mere defense to liability, and “courts must consider the issue of a government employee’s qualified immunity from liability as the threshold

Simon v. City of New York

819 F. Supp. 2d 145 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 7, 2011

Absolute and Qualified Immunity 1. The Prosecutor’s Actions In Imbler v. … It is beyond dispute that individuals are protected by qualified immunity so long as “(1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) [it] was objectively reasonable for them to believe

Schumacher v. Halverson

467 F. Supp. 2d 939 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Dec 15, 2006

Qualified immunity shields police officers from suit for official acts as long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Unless the officer violated a clearly established constitutional right and the conduct is objectively unreasonable, qualified immunity applies. Gorra, 880 F.2d at 97 . B.

Monroe v. Gould

372 F. Supp. 3d 197 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 14, 2019

Qualified immunity shields government officials whose conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … "The issues on qualified immunity are: (1) whether plaintiff has shown facts making out violation of a constitutional right; (2) if so, whether that right was 'clearly established'; and (3) even if the right was 'clearly

Vaughn v. Gray

557 F.3d 904 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 6, 2009

In deciding whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court asks two questions: “(1) whether ... there was a deprivation of a constitutional right; and, if so, (2) whether the right was clearly established … In this case, Appellants argue only that Vaughn has not established the deprivation of a constitutional right, and therefore, we need not address whether that right was “clearly established.”