Case law

Lipson v. Anesthesia Services, P.A.

790 A.2d 1261 · Superior Court of Delaware · Oct 3, 2001

Arguably, if ASPA could establish that it provides health care services (which clearly it does) and that it “follows a formal peer review process,” its governing body would qualify as a “professional review body” when engaged … Delaware clearly recognizes “a qualified privilege of employers to make communications regarding the character, qualifications, or job performance of an employee or former employee to those who have a legitimate interest

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.”

Marvin v. Fitch

126 Nev. 168 · Nevada Supreme Court · May 27, 2010

Generally, qualified immunity, 5 rather than absolute immunity, is sufficient to protect nonjudicial officers in the performance of their duties, id. at 617 , 55 P.3d at 425 (quoting Burns v. … Qualified immunity may also provide immunity from suit so long as the defendant’s actions were not in violation of clearly established law. See Mitchell v.

Nero v. Mosby

233 F. Supp. 3d 463 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 27, 2017

The shield of qualified immunity is lost when a government official (1) violates a constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established. Graham v. … That is, the right must have been clearly established at the time of events at issue. See Graham v. Gagnon, 831 F.3d 176, 182 (4th Cir. 2016). See discussion of qualified immunity below. .

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.

Perry Center, Inc. v. Heitkamp

576 N.W.2d 505 · North Dakota Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1998

Questions of qualified immunity are usually ones of law for a court to decide. Wishnatsky . … Absolute immunity defeats a suit at the outset, while an official with qualified immunity must establish, his of her conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Neuberger v. Gordon

567 F. Supp. 2d 622 · District Court, D. Delaware · Jul 21, 2008

For qualified immunity purposes, a right is considered clearly established only if “[t]he contours of the right ... … As a result, the “unlawful intent inherent in ... retaliatory action places it beyond the scope of ... qualified immunity if the right retaliated against was clearly established.” DeLoach, 922 F.2d at 620 .

Hodge v. Village of Southampton

838 F. Supp. 2d 67 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 20, 2012

Qualified Immunity Defendant Hunsucker argues, in the alternative, that he is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the excessive force claim. … Tollaksen, 257 Fed.Appx. 400, 401 (2d Cir. 2007) (explaining that government officers “are protected by qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established law, or it was objectively reasonable for them

Tunnell v. Crosby

657 F. Supp. 2d 1263 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Aug 24, 2009

This is so because the motions to dismiss plainly must be granted anyway based on qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v. … The defendants thus have qualified immunity. See, e.g., Anderson v.

Moore v. Morgan

922 F.2d 1553 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 7, 1991

Finally, Moore contends that even if Morgan and the commissioners did not waive the defense of qualified immunity, they did not meet their burden of establishing the defense. … He correctly stated that the test for qualified immunity is an objective one: whether reasonable county commissioners could have concluded their conduct to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information

E. Irene Wrigley v. Basil G. Greanias, Individually and as State's Attorney in and for MacOn County, Illinois

842 F.2d 955 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 13, 1988

Greanias would be entitled to qualified immunity if, at the time he acted, the law did not clearly establish that a state’s attorney was prevented from discharging someone holding this particular position. … Greanias’ claim of qualified immunity clearly is premised on acceptance of his view of the position’s re *960 sponsibilities. He does not contend that, even if Mrs.

Papp v. Snyder

81 F. Supp. 2d 852 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 20, 2000

The right to be free from excessive force is clearly established under the Fourth Amendment for purposes of qualified immunity. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 , 109 S.Ct. 1865 , 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989). … Having found a potential constitutional violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the Court must now consider the final step of the qualified immunity analysis.

Chu v. Mississippi State University

901 F. Supp. 2d 761 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Oct 3, 2012

In evaluating a claim of qualified immunity, courts consider (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct … Qualified immunity bars suit against state officials “if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Chambers v. Pennycook

641 F.3d 898 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 6, 2011

right was clearly established. … The second step in the qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the right that was violated was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct. Pearson, 129 S. Ct. at 816.

Benavidez v. Shutiva

2015 NMCA 65 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2015

To overcome the qualified immunity defense, a “plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the defendant’s alleged conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the … Since the law was not clearly established, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and the lower court’s decision was reversed.

Linda DeVooght v. City of Warren, Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 5, 2025

On appeal, Dwyer contends that he didn’t violate DeVooght’s clearly established First Amendment rights, so he should receive qualified immunity. … We have repeatedly held that a public employee’s right to engage in protected speech without retaliation is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. See Buddenberg v.

Montgomery v. Board of County Commissioners

637 F. Supp. 2d 934 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 5, 2009

Plaintiff further argues that “qualified immunity should be denied, because it is clearly established that a State may not discharge an employee on a basis that infringes that employee’s constitutionally-protected interest … Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, I must determine whether Plaintiffs First Amendment right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

M.W. Ex Rel. T.W. v. Madison County Board of Education

262 F. Supp. 2d 737 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · May 7, 2003

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 a … was clearly established.

Smith v. Tolley

960 F. Supp. 977 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 4, 1997

Baker, 825 F.2d 772, 774 (4th Cir.1987). 22 This is because “... there are two levels on which the immunity shield operates. First, the particular right must be clearly established in the law. … Therefore, Tolley is entitled to qualified immunity.