Case law

Tatum v. Winslow

122 F. App'x 309 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 19, 2005

If this question is satisfied, then the court turns to the “qualified immunity inquiry,” and asks if the right was clearly established. Id. at 201-2. … The “Qualified Immunity Inquiry” The second step of the Saucier analysis requires that the defendant demonstrate that his misconduct was not a violation of clearly established law. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201.

Darryl Leon Rouse v. William Plantier, Acting Superintendent of A.D.T.C. Sally S. Scheidemantel, Resigning Superintendent of A.D.T.C. William H. Fauver, Commissioner of N.J. Department of Corrections Governor Jim Florio, State of New Jersey Dr. Robert Cardinale, Medical Director of A.D.T.C. Dr. Narshima Reddy, Attending Physician of A.D.T.C. Ms. Elaine Martin, Chief Nurse of A.D.T.C. Captain Helmkin, Housing Mike Zell, Director of Social Services Dr. Sandoval, Attending Psychologist of A.D.T.C. Dr. Cattone, M.D., St. Francis Hospital Scott Faunce Dr. Tarlian, M.D. Dr. O'bryne, M.D. Dr. Todd, M.D., St. Francis Hospital Charles Brooks, on Behalf of a Class of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated Stephen Jankowski, on Behalf of a Class of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated Julio Baez, on Behalf of a Class of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated Robert Kammerer, on Behalf of a Class of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated v. Elaine Allen John Doe Jane Roe William Plantier Robert Cardinale Narshima Reddy Elaine Allen

182 F.3d 192 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 29, 1999

Turning to defendants' qualified immunity defense, the District Court held that the right at issue was clearly established and that the defendants had failed to demonstrate the reasonableness of their actions. … immunity, it is necessary to determine whether a reasonable official in the position of that defendant would have known that his or her actions were unconstitutional in light of the clearly established law and the information

Gray v. Cummings

917 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 22, 2019

Cummings has invoked the defense of qualified immunity. … Thus, a government official may invoke the defense of qualified immunity when his actions, though causing injury, did "not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Hill v. Florio

District Court, S.D. Georgia · Mar 31, 2025

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional … “Thus, if a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court should grant qualified immunity if the plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege a violation of a clearly established

Eberhardinger v. City of York

341 F. Supp. 3d 420 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 2018

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects a state actor who has committed a constitutional violation if the plaintiff's rights were not "clearly established" when the individual acted. See Pearson v. … The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly admonished that, when analyzing qualified immunity, courts should not "define clearly established law at a high level of generality."

George v. Beaver County

32 F.4th 1246 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 3, 2022

In the qualified-immunity context, “[a] clearly established right is one that is sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” Cummings v. … Thus, Rose’s conduct did not violate clearly established law, and he is entitled to qualified immunity. The district court properly granted summary judgment to the County, Noel, and Rose.

Wesley Brayman v. Mark Shepherd

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 4, 1996

of clearly established law.'" … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231 (1991) (holding that the first inquiry in a proper qualified immunity analysis is whether the plaintiff alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right).

Charter Township of York v. Donald Miller

322 Mich. App. 648 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 2018

The MMMA provides immunity from arrest, prosecution, and penalties in any manner, and prohibits the denial of any rights or privileges to qualifying medical marijuana patients and registered primary caregivers. … The MMMA also provides that other state law inconsistent with the MMMA may not interfere with the rights established under the MMMA.

Donahue v. Gavin

280 F.3d 371 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 7, 2002

B. 28 Government officials exercising discretionary functions have qualified immunity from suits seeking damages under § 1983 "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … violated some clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Miley v. Housing Authority

926 F. Supp. 2d 420 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 25, 2013

Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability where the officials’ conduct was not in violation of a ‘clearly established’ constitutional right.” Sudler v. … by qualified immunity.”

Cox v. County of Suffolk

780 F. Supp. 103 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 10, 1991

Qualified immunity is not only a defense to liability, but also a “protection against having to defend a lawsuit.” Magnotti, 918 F.2d at 367 . … clearly established at the time those acts took place.

Doe v. Terry

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 28, 2023

Qualified immunity is “an affirmative defense shielding governmental officials from liability so long as their conduct does ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Additionally, because the law was clearly established at the time of Defendant’s actions, Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Salinas v. Texas Workforce Commission

573 F. App'x 370 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 19, 2014

To evaluate a qualified immunity defense the court must inquire: “(1) whether the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonably in light of clearly … Salinas has not shown that any defendant violated his constitutional rights or clearly established law.

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.”

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

Jennifer Harmon v. Second Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 13, 2025

The court concluded that the Government Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because Harmon failed to show that any constitutional violation was clearly established. … Because Harmon failed to show that the alleged substantive due process violations were clearly established, the Government Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for the § 1983 claims.

Morris v. Town of Lexington Alabama

748 F.3d 1316 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 21, 2014

“The doctrine of qualified immunity 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 … rights were “clearly established” when the defendant committed the act complained of.

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.”

Marjorie Shepherd v. City of Shreveport

920 F.3d 278 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 3, 2019

“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Mace, 333 F.3d at 623. … Shepherd argues that Corporal Tucker is not entitled to qualified immunity because “the constitutional right to be free of deadly force” is clearly established.

Medeiros v. Merced County Sheriff Deputy Clark

713 F. Supp. 2d 1043 · District Court, E.D. California · May 5, 2010

Qualified immunity serves to shield 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 would … Thus, Satterfield is not entitled to *1063 qualified immunity for these alleged acts, because they violated the plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights. Id. at 1005-1007. See also Bretz v.