Case law

Austin v. Hamilton

945 F.2d 1155 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 24, 1991

Qualified Immunity In assessing a defense of qualified immunity, the court must determine *1161 the objective reasonableness of the challenged conduct by reference to the law clearly established at the time of the alleged … That standard was clearly established at the time the challenged incident took place.” Dixon v. Richer, 922 F.2d 1456, 1461-62 (10th Cir.1991).

Haavisto v. Perpich

520 N.W.2d 727 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Aug 19, 1994

An official will not be personally liable under § 1983 if the official conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Amendment to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and that the constitutional right violated was a clearly established constitutional right in 1982 of which a reasonable prison administrator would have known.

Michael A. White v. Madeline Holmes Charles Rosenkoetter

21 F.3d 277 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 18, 1994

In their motion for summary judgment, Holmes and Rosenkoetter argued they did not violate any clearly established laws and are entitled to qualified immunity. 2 In a supplemental motion for summary judgment, the defendants … is entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Borucki v. Ryan

658 F. Supp. 325 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 20, 1986

established and Ryan would be entitled to qualified immunity under Harlow v. … Moreover, this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation, so defendant Ryan may not successfully invoke qualified good faith immunity at this stage.

Loumiet v. United States of America

255 F. Supp. 3d 75 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 13, 2017

, and qualified immunity. 1. … basis of qualified immunity.

Cavanagh v. Taranto

95 F. Supp. 3d 220 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2015

What an Objectively Reasonable Official Would Believe Under the Circumstances Although the right Cavanagh alleges is clearly established, to avoid qualified immunity the bounds and contours of a violation of that right must … suicide — “violated clearly established law.”

Alana Crutcher-Sanchez v. James L. Wagner

687 F.3d 979 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 3, 2012

Qualified immunity “protects ‘government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … A qualified immunity analysis involves: first, whether the facts alleged establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right and second, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

Reese v. York

571 F. Supp. 1046 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 22, 1983

The objective component is concerned with whether or not the officer knew or should *1049 have known that his actions violated clearly established law at the time. … To deny him qualified immunity protection unless he goes further and demonstrates that his actions were above the benchmark of legal good faith, would make the concept of qualified immunity a meaningless embelishment.”

Clayton v. City of Kingston

44 F. Supp. 2d 177 · District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 23, 1999

Overcoming qualified immunity entails a two-part process: “First, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss if the allegations of the complaint fail to “state a claim of violation of clearly established law.” See Connell v.

Duke Grider v. B. Bowling

785 F.3d 1248 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 11, 2015

Officer Bowling is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated Grider's "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … It is "clearly established that an officer who fails to intervene to prevent the unconstitutional use of excessive force by another officer may be held liable for violating the Fourth Amendment." Nance v.

Henry Greer, Administrator of the Estate of Mora Patricia Greer v. Stanley D. Shoop Ronald Dohrman Thomas L. Frisch

141 F.3d 824 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 2, 1998

Therefore, we hold that the contours of the state-created danger theory, as applied to the unique facts of this case, were not defined clearly enough in 1991 to remove the defendants’ qualified immunity protection. 3 Greer … According to Greer, because the defendants would be indemnified, there is no reason to provide them with qualified immunity.

Smith v. College of the Mainland

63 F. Supp. 3d 712 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 30, 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 person … In other words, for purposes of qualified immunity, the illegality of First Amendment retaliation is clearly established when the officials “do not have any relevant, legitimate interests to put on their side of the Pickering

Wheeler v. City of Lansing

677 F. Supp. 2d 965 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jan 6, 2010

“Ordinarily, a Supreme Court or Sixth Circuit [Court of Appeals] decision on point is necessary” to clearly establish the right in the relevant context and defeat qualified immunity. Reynolds v. … On qualified immunity analysis, this court’s duty is to ascertain what our Circuit’s clearly established law was on the date of the challenged search.

Kebe v. Brown

161 F. Supp. 2d 634 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 12, 2001

granted qualified immunity. … Officers are “entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity if they can establish that reasonable officers could have believed that their actions were lawful in light of both clearly established law and

North

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 17, 2025

App’x 490, 493 (9th 4 Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted) (concluding defendants were entitled to 5 qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that depriving prisoner of a 6 mattress or bed … Mandeville, 706 F.3d 7 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2013) (finding defendants entitled to qualified immunity because it 8 was not clearly established that mattress deprivation for seven days violated Eighth 9 Amendment

Larsen v. State Employees' Retirement System

553 F. Supp. 2d 403 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 2008

“Qualified immunity shields state officials from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Burella v. … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.

Anderson v. Board of Regents

822 F. Supp. 2d 1342 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 30, 2011

Qualified immunity confers complete protection upon government officials sued in their personal capacities unless their conduct “ ‘violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … In addition, in order to avoid summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, plaintiff must show that the property or liberty interest was well established and that the process he received was clearly inadequate.

McCormack v. Livergood

353 F. Supp. 3d 357 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2018

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials performing "discretionary functions," are shielded from suit if their conduct did not violate a "clearly established statutory or constitutional right[ … were "clearly established" at the time of the incident.

Carrasquillo v. Aponte Roque

682 F. Supp. 137 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 9, 1988

those rights was ‘clearly established in plaintiff's favor.’ ” Juarbe-Angueira v. … Put another way, “only where the action in question is clearly unlawful does a defendant lose his qualified immunity.” Juarbe-Angueira, 831 F.2d at 12 (emphasis in original).

Martinez v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

300 F.3d 567 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 25, 2002

GOV’T CODE ANN. § 554; and whether Laura Martinez has shown violation of a clearly established constitutional right, thereby depriving the three individual Defendants of qualified immunity. … To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity, we apply a well-established, two-step analysis: whether the official violated a clearly established constitutional right; and, if he