Case law

Wark v. Board of County Commissioners

47 P.3d 711 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 2002

Because the trial court's finding is not clearly erroneous, we may not disturb it. B. … Although the county argued that plaintiffs' claims were barred under the qualified immunity doctrine, the trial court's ruling is primarily based on the insufficiency of the allegations in the complaint.

Melgar Ex Rel. Melgar v. Greene

593 F.3d 348 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 29, 2010

The Supreme Court has cautioned against interpreting clearly established law too generally for fear of allowing plaintiffs “to convert the rule of qualified immunity ... into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply … In light of the foregoing principles, we hold that qualified immunity is appropriate because Officer Greene did not violate clearly established law in his search for a missing boy who faced serious potential injury.

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.

Muhammad v. Close

798 F. Supp. 2d 869 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 8, 2011

Qualified immunity The defendant first raised the issue of qualified immunity in its supplemental brief in this Court after the latest remand. In English v. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects government actors performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when them conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

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.

Kemp v. Lawyer

846 F. Supp. 2d 1170 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 8, 2012

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 person … § 1983 against Defendant Turano, I do not address the second prong of the two-part qualified immunity test-namely, whether the alleged constitutional violation was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Clay v. Woodbury County

982 F. Supp. 2d 904 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Nov 6, 2013

Clay’s reliance on a “generalized right” to be free from an unreasonable search is not sufficient to “clearly establish” the specific right on which her claim hangs for purposes of “qualified immunity.” … Turning to the second prong of the “qualified immunity” analysis, whether the right was “clearly established,” see Burton, 731 F.3d at 791-92 , the decisions in Hicks 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.

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.

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

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.

Rita Johnson v. City of Saginaw

980 F.3d 497 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 13, 2020

Analysis Cabello and Stemple appeal the denial of qualified immunity.3 “This court reviews a district court’s denial of summary judgment based on qualified-immunity grounds de novo.” Quigley, 707 F.3d at 679. … “An assertion of qualified immunity may be overcome if the defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right.” United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga, 768 F.3d 464, 484-85 (6th Cir. 2014).

Waste Conversion, Inc. v. Sims

868 F. Supp. 643 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 15, 1994

The court also found that the right to a prompt post-deprivation right was “clearly established,” and thus defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at 7). … Finally, even if defendants did violate plaintiffs’ due process rights, these rights were not “clearly established,” and thus defendants are not liable under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

McKeon v. Daley

101 F. Supp. 2d 79 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 24, 2000

Qualified immunity is available to protect conduct violating a clearly established constitutional right where the governmental official had an objectively reasonable and good faith belief that the action taken was lawful. … of qualified immunity.