Case law

Bartrug v. Rubin

986 F. Supp. 332 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 25, 1997

However, there are no facts alleged which establish that these acts are violative of a “clearly established constitutional right.” … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials fi-om civil liability as long as their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Joyner v. Greiner

195 F. Supp. 2d 500 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 28, 2002

POINT III DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from civil suits arising from performance of their discretionary functions so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly … Whether an offi *508 cial may invoke qualified immunity “generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action ... assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ ” when the action was

Asociación De Periodistas De Puerto Rico v. Mueller

529 F.3d 52 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 18, 2008

Qualified Immunity In their motion for summary judgment, the defendants seek to avoid liability by invoking the protection of qualified immunity. … See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201 ("If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.").

Cesar v. Achim

542 F. Supp. 2d 897 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Mar 27, 2008

The burden of proving the existence of a clearly established constitutional right is on the plaintiff, and it is a heavy one because qualified immunity is designed to shield from civil liability “ ‘all but the plainly incompetent … Moreover, I do not believe qualified immunity is appropriate at this time, as Achim’s alleged conduct, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, could amount to a violation of a clearly established constitutional right

Matthew Locke v. County of Hubbard

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 17, 2025

While I disagree with the court’s constitutional analysis, I need not resolve that inquiry as the case can be easily resolved under the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See Pearson v. … This does not constitute a violation of a clearly established right; therefore, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Cudd v. Aldrich

982 F. Supp. 463 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 7, 1997

The next inquiry for qualified immunity purposes is whether Cudd’s First Amendment right to be free from political patronage dismissal was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Second, and more importantly, the inquiry into qualified immunity is an objective one: the Court must determine what a reasonable public official would have understood as clearly established law.

Machelle Pearson v. MDOC

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 26, 2026

It also held that they could seek damages because the complaint alleged a violation of clearly established law to overcome any qualified-immunity defense. See id. at *5–6. … The Inmates also contend that they may rely on the clearly established “right to safe and sanitary conditions” to overcome qualified immunity. Appellees’ Br. 27.

Hyburnia Husband v. Charles Bryan and Larry Saurage

946 F.2d 27 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 28, 1991

Violation of Clearly Established Law “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields a police officer from liability for civil damages when a reasonable officer could have believed that the challenged conduct did not violate … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.”

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.

Ways v. City of Lincoln

909 F. Supp. 1316 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Dec 13, 1995

Because this inquiry is fact intensive, “ ‘the asserted First Amendment right’ can rarely be considered ‘clearly established’ for purposes of the Harlow qualified immunity standard.” Id. (quoting Buzek v. … by definition be “clearly established.”

State v. McQueen

293 Mich. App. 644 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 23, 2011

In addition, § 4(i) provides immunity for a “person” who assists a registered qualifying patient with “using or administering marihuana.” … Defendants do not claim immunity on the basis of being in the vicinity of the medical use of marijuana; they claim immunity on the basis of their assistance to registered qualifying patients with “using or administering”

Marquez v. Gutierrez

322 F.3d 689 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 6, 2003

The qualified immunity inquiry has two parts: "(1) Was the law governing the state official's conduct clearly established? (2) Under that law could a reasonable state official have believed his conduct was lawful?" … Further, Marquez argues that a prison official cannot act maliciously and sadistically while, at the same time, reasonably believing that his actions conform to clearly established law.

Sanders v. City of Dothan

671 F. Supp. 2d 1263 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Nov 30, 2009

Under the “clearly established” prong of the qualified-immunity analysis, police officers are entitled to immunity from suit “unless the law pre-existing the [officerj’s supposedly wrongful act was already established to … immunity because that right was not clearly established.

Brown v. City of Golden Valley

534 F. Supp. 2d 984 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Feb 14, 2008

Zarrett argues that qualified immunity shields him from liability. … “Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a section 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would

Hinton v. City of Elwood

997 F.2d 774 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 29, 1993

Since this conclusion is sufficient to support the district court’s finding of qualified immunity, we need not reach the issue of whether the law was clearly established at the time Myer and White’s conduct occurred. … In Medina we determined that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established, 960 F.2d at 1498-99 , and in Watson we remanded for a finding on that *783 issue, 857

Jantz v. Muci

976 F.2d 623 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 14, 1992

Therefore, the court analyzed Plaintiff's qualified immunity defense under a rational basis test, holding that it was clearly established in 1988 that the government could not " 'discriminate [against homosexuals] for the … Applying this precept as clearly established by one fellow district court, 1 the court held that Defendant was not entitled to the qualified immunity defense because he did not offer a rational explanation for basing his

Robert P. Brennan v. Township of Northville, Lawrence Demeter and Fred Yankee, Individually and in Their Official Capacities

78 F.3d 1152 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 26, 1996

Lawrence Demeter and Fred Yankee appeal the denial of qualified immunity in this action premised on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … II A denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds may be reviewed on interlocutory appeal under Mitchell v.

Torres v. Runyon

80 F. App'x 594 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 6, 2003

If the official violated a constitutional right, he or she nonetheless may be entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established such that a reasonable official “would understand that what he is doing … The next prong of the qualified immunity analysis is “ ‘a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established?

Christopher Lee Prosser v. Davis L. Ross, Co I

70 F.3d 1005 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 1, 1995

Ross is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated Prosser’s “clearly established” constitutional rights. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982); Johnson v. … Ross is therefore entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Brumley v. Utah State Tax Commission

220 Utah Adv. Rep. 45 · Utah Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1993

However, a plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of a constitutional or statutory right may overcome the defendant officials’ qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of … Because the constitutional rights in question were not “clearly established” during the twenty-day period, we find no error in the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ civil rights action on the ground of qualified immunity