Case law

Kevin McCourt v. Miguel Angel Delgado

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 25, 2019

Under this standard, the petitioner officers contend they are entitled summary judgment based on qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights. … Under a qualified immunity analysis, we must determine whether the petitioner officers’ alleged conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Derrell E. Upton v. Bernie C. Thompson, Individually and in His Capacity as Sheriff of Kankakee County, Jack L. Thulen v. Marvin Bausman, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Carroll County, Illinois

930 F.2d 1209 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 22, 1991

The district court concluded such rights were clearly established and denied the Sheriff's motion for summary judgment. Sheriff Thompson appeals the denial of qualified immunity. 8 II. … established in 1986 the sheriffs in these cases are protected by qualified immunity.

Hall v. Ryan

957 F.2d 402 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 28, 1992

Judge Baker noted that qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 , 97 S.Ct. 285 , 50 L.Ed.2d 251 , the standard of conduct imposed on defendants with respect to the care of people in custody was clearly established, so that the police officers' qualified immunity defense

Policky v. City of Seward, Neb.

433 F. Supp. 2d 1013 · District Court, D. Nebraska · May 25, 2006

Officer Shook Qualified immunity protects government officials from the costs of trial and the burdens of broad discovery unless their discretionary acts violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. … “[T]o withstand a motion for summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds, a plaintiff must (1) assert a violation of a constitutional right; (2) demonstrate that the alleged right is clearly established; and (3) raise

Smiley v. Alabama Department of Transportation

778 F. Supp. 2d 1283 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 30, 2011

Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . 14 Qualified immunity is applicable unless the officials conduct violated a clearly established federal right. Anderson v. … The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly held, in the qualified immunity context, that the right to be free from employment discrimination on the basis of race is clearly established. See, e.g., Rioux v.

BK v. Toumpas

909 F. Supp. 2d 60 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 14, 2012

“Qualified immunity shields ... state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a constitutional or statutory right and (2) that the right was clearly established … In any event, a single decision from another district court does not provide the "fair warning” of clearly established law necessary to overcome the defendants' qualified immunity defense. See Lynch v.

Monks v. Marlinga

732 F. Supp. 749 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 14, 1990

Thus, neither is dispositive of the current qualified immunity issue. … in fact is not clearly established today.

Wallace v. City of Shelby

968 F. Supp. 1204 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 30, 1997

The Supreme Court held that, with respect to motions for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, “the judge may appropriately determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established … Plaintiffs assert that the use of excessive force is itself a violation of a clearly established constitutional right in “cases dealing with qualified immunity”. (Plaintiffs’ Opp. at 7).

Hamrick v. City of Eustace

732 F. Supp. 1390 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 19, 1990

Those Courts go on to reason that if the law which the defendant is alleged to have violated is clearly established, then the qualified immunity defense must fail. Id. … If the law is not clearly established, the defendant is immune. Id.

Carrubba v. Moskowitz

274 Conn. 533 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Jul 26, 2005

Because any immunity accorded to attorneys appointed pursuant to § 46b-54 would be derived from *540 judicial immunity, we first examine the policy reasons underlying judicial immunity. 6 It is well established that “a judge … Absolute immunity would not be available, however, when persons who would normally be accorded immunity “perform acts which are clearly outside the scope of their jurisdiction.” Cok v.

Reiner v. Dandurand

33 F. Supp. 3d 1018 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 16, 2014

“[G]overnmental actors performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity and are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … James did not do so; thus, the Officers’ decision to pull James over for a traffic violation is also not a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. 3 Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity

Spivey v. Elliott

41 F.3d 1497 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 11, 1995

The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if it is determined that the legal precedents do not reveal that the defendants violated "clearly established … The opinion is fully reaffirmed, however, on the holding that there was no constitutional duty clearly established at the time of the sexual assault, so the defendant officials were properly entitled to qualified immunity

Gary Vickery, Cross-Appellee v. Janell Jones, William Pearman and Kirk Brown, and Saline County Republican Central Committee and William Roberts

100 F.3d 1334 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 22, 1996

Second, if so, was the unconstitutionality clearly established or are the state defendants entitled to qualified immunity? Third, did [the plaintiff] suffer an injury by virtue of the defendants’ actions? … Qualified immunity shields government officials who are performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Killebrew v. City of Greenwood, Miss.

988 F. Supp. 1010 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Nov 3, 1997

If so, the court must then decide whether the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the events in question. Id. … There can certainly be no dispute that the right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment was clearly established at the time of the events in question.

Bailey v. United States Marshal Service

584 F. Supp. 2d 128 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 3, 2008

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 established statutory … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

State v. McInnes

2026 Ohio 734 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 2026

“The doctrine of qualified immunity generally shields public officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … to qualified immunity.

Hamilton v. Leavy

322 F.3d 776 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 28, 2003

Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity defense, the District Court held that "Hamilton’s right to be protected from known risks was clearly established in August 5, 1992." … As we have previously explained, however, "to defeat qualified immunity it is not sufficient that the right at issue be clearly established as a general matter.

Garcia Ex Rel. Merino v. Brown

442 F. Supp. 2d 132 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 2, 2006

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively … The Circuit concluded, however, that this type of implicit liability was not so clearly established as to bar dismissal on the ground of qualified immunity. Pena, 432 F.3d at 114-15 . 3 .

Adams v. St. Lucie County Sheriff's Department

962 F.2d 1563 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 15, 1992

The court concluded in Ansley that “[t]he Supreme Court’s qualified immunity precedent aims at one goal: to keep the public official out of the courtroom, free to exercise discretionary duties under clearly established law … ’ conduct violated that clearly established law?

Seaman v. Karr

59 P.3d 701 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 20, 2002

Clearly Established Law To determine whether a federal right is clearly established, we look first to United States Supreme Court precedent and then to decisions of the controlling Circuit Court of Appeals. … For qualified immunity purposes, "clearly established" means: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.