Case law

Price v. Dixon

961 F. Supp. 894 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 21, 1997

Qualified immunity operates to release government officials from suit if it cannot be shown that their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person in their position would have … Without expressly deciding this issue, however, the court finds that qualified immunity is appropriate based on the “clearly established law” analysis.

Margaret Andrews v. Robert Fuoss, Individually and in His Capacity as Sheriff of Jones County, South Dakota

417 F.3d 813 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 1, 2005

ANALYSIS On appeal, Andrews asserts that the district court erred in granting Sheriff Fuoss’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because Sheriff Fuoss’s actions violated her clearly established … State officers “are entitled to qualified immunity unless their alleged conduct violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person [in their positions] would have known.’ ” McCoy

Kristine Williams v. MO Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 6, 2026

Further, they assert that Williams failed to plausibly allege a violation of a clearly established right because the clearly established right is one to be protected from the known risks of suicide, and Loflin, Yount, and … , ‘whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged infraction.’”

William J. Klein v. Lawrence Ryan and Frank Lombardo

847 F.2d 368 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 16, 1988

To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the officials violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Because qualified immunity analysis requires us to apply the law that was clearly established on May 12, 1983, see Zook v. Brown, 748 F.2d 1161, 1164 (7th Cir.1984), Gamer does not control this case. See Brown v.

Mitchell v. Rice

954 F.2d 187 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 10, 1992

On the other hand, if the law was not so clearly established as to give notice to a reasonable prison official, we must permit appellants an immunity defense and dismiss this case against them. … Because the record in this case does not adequately address all the issues necessary to determine whether prison officials violated clearly established law, we cannot grant qualified immunity at this time.

Sutherland v. Mizer

625 F. Supp. 2d 492 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · May 6, 2008

Inasmuch as he is the party who has the responsibility of challenging the qualified immunity defense, Sutherland has not sufficiently pled a violation of a clearly established right. … Because Sutherland has not sufficiently alleged the violation of a clearly established right, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for Count V.

Duaut A. Duamutef v. Melvin L. Hollins, Superintendent, and P. Almstead

297 F.3d 108 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 18, 2002

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … And because we conclude that there was no violation of a clearly established right, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Mindy Kahle v. Deputy Tim Malone

477 F.3d 544 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 12, 2007

If the right was not clearly established, then the officer is protected by qualified immunity. 1. … Qualified Immunity The second question in the qualified-immunity analysis requires us to consider whether the right that Malone allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Jubilee v. Horn

975 F. Supp. 761 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 1997

Defendants seek judgment on the pleadings based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. In Harlow v. … The Court later clarified this objective test by explaining that “to defeat qualified immunity it is not sufficient that the right at issue be clearly established as a general matter.

Grammens v. Dollar

287 Ga. 618 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Jul 5, 2010

The doctrine of official immunity, also known as qualified immunity, offers public officers and employees limited protection from suit in their personal capacity. [Cit.] … Qualified immunity “protects individual public agents from personal liability for discretionary actions taken within the scope of their official authority, and done without wilfulness, malice, or corruption.” [Cit.]

Gorman v. Bartch

152 F.3d 907 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 20, 1998

The defendants argue in response that their conduct did not violate clearly established rights under the statutes. 8 We review de novo the decision granting qualified immunity. Rowe v. … Id., 502 U.S. at 25-27 , 112 S.Ct. at 362. 20 The defense of qualified immunity gives government officials engaged in discretionary activities immunity from liability unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory

Johnson v. Morris

445 N.W.2d 563 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Oct 19, 1989

If the law allegedly violated is clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since reasonably competent public officials should know the law governing their conduct. Harlow v. … that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken. * * * ” Id.

Doane v. Helenville Mutual Insurance Co.

216 Wis. 2d 345 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Jan 29, 1998

Rather, the parties' *352 disagreement centers on whether Ehle qualifies as an "owner" entitled to immunity under the statute either because his shanty constitutes a statutory "structure," or because he is an "occupier," … CONCLUSION A portable ice shanty located on a frozen lake does not qualify as recreational "property" and is insufficient to establish its owner as an "occupant" of the lake entitled to recreational immunity.

Thomas v. Town of Salisbury

277 F. Supp. 3d 161 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 30, 2017

right that the official has violated was clearly established at the time of the violation.” … Justice Thompson argued that the majority had construed “the clearly-established-right prong” of the qualified immunity analysis too narrowly, and required that the precedent be too directly on point before an official could

Meyer v. NILES TP., ILL.

477 F. Supp. 357 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 24, 1979

Dunne Is Not Protected by the Doctrine of Qualified Immunity. … To rebut the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the constitutional right infringed was clearly established at the time of the action and the official “knew or reasonably should have known that

Hunt v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of New Mex.

338 F. Supp. 3d 1251 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 6, 2018

Clearly Established Law Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct " 'does not violate *1260 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Mullenix v. … Thus, they cannot be used to demonstrate "clearly established law" within the meaning of a qualified immunity analysis.

Williams v. City of Montgomery

21 F. Supp. 2d 1360 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 16, 1998

However, the necessity for detailed pleadings is especially apparent in cases involving qualified immunity, where the court must determine whether an individual defendant’s actions violated a clearly established right. … Murphy is entitled to qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage if Plaintiffs complaint fails to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Santamorena v.

Merisier v. Ellender

197 F. Supp. 3d 310 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 6, 2016

As the First Circuit recently explained: The rules for granting qualified immunity are well established. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’

Sonnier v. Crain

649 F. Supp. 2d 484 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jul 30, 2009

A state actor is entitled to qualified immunity if his or her conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time of his or her actions. McClendon v. … For a constitutional right to be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. 4 Hope

Adams v. City of Shreveport

269 F. Supp. 3d 743 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Aug 28, 2017

A defendant who can validly raise a qualified immunity defense will enjoy its protection so long as the allegedly violated constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the violation. See id. … This right is a clearly established right for the purposes of a qualified immunity analysis. See id.