Case law

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

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.

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.

Herrera v. Davila

272 F. Supp. 2d 154 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 17, 2003

Id. 1) Qualified Immunity and Indifference to Medical Needs Qualified immunity shields officials from having to pay for damages resulting from violations of § 1983 provided “their conduct does not violate clearly established … it occurred, transgressed a clearly established right.”

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.

Hicks v. City of Watonga

942 F.2d 737 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 19, 1991

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY We review the denial of a qualified immunity claim de novo. McEvoy, 882 F.2d at 465 . … The appellants are entitled to qualified immunity on the property interest claim unless they violated Mr. Hicks’ clearly established right. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

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.

Jane Doe v. Francis D. Phillips, Ii, Gerald D. D'amelia, Jr.

81 F.3d 1204 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 22, 1996

Qualified Immunity In support of his defense of qualified immunity, D’Amelia argues, inter alia, that he did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights because he and his colleagues knew of no ease holding … Government officials may enjoy a privilege of qualified immunity from liability for damages arising out of their performance of discretionary official functions so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established

Risbridger v. Connelly

275 F.3d 565 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 4, 2002

Three other circuits, on the other hand, have held that a right to refuse to identify oneself during a valid Terry stop was not clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. See Oliver v. … Because the right must have been clearly established at the time the officer act *572 ed in order to defeat the claim to qualified immunity, we do not discuss the reasoning of these cases. .

Heyne v. Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools

655 F.3d 556 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 26, 2011

right was clearly established.” … When a defendant appeals the denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, we review de novo whether the complaint alleges violation of a clearly established constitutional right. See Hardy v.

Grossman v. Richards

722 A.2d 371 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 13, 1999

P. 56(b) on the ground that no genuine issue of material fact existed and Grossman failed to establish the elements of his claims. … Madura, 474 A.2d 166 (Me.1984), can be read to suggest that only a qualified immunity was intended, it is incorrect.

Dobos v. Driscoll

404 Mass. 634 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 19, 1989

Qualified immunity pursuant to § 1983. Under Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982), the doctrine of qualified immunity applies only to “discretionary functions.” … The doctrine of qualified immunity has both an objective and a subjective element.

Aaron v. Shelley

624 F.3d 882 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 12, 2010

An interlocutory order denying qualified immunity is immediately appealable “to the extent that it turns on an issue of law.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985). … As we see it, the most clearly established laws in sight are the well-settled summary judgment and qualified immunity principles violated by this contention. The appeal does not pass muster under Johnson v.

Essalene Lambert v. City of Dumas

187 F.3d 931 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 9, 1999

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which the reasonable person would have known.” Yowell v. … The Appellee alleges the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Britt v. Garcia

457 F.3d 264 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 25, 2006

Qualified Immunity Doctrine “The doctrine of qualified immunity offers protection for ‘government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … subjected to such conduct was not clearly established at the time of the conduct, or that the appellants’ actions were objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time

Mignon Marie Stone v. Richard Holzberger Richard A. Carpenter Richard Sizemore William Profitt Terry Payer

23 F.3d 408 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 6, 1994

[or qualified immunity] turns, such that it cannot be determined before trial whether the defendants did acts that violate clearly established rights.... 37 Poe v. … Once a defendant pleads a defense of qualified immunity, "[o]n summary judgment, the judge appropriately may determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action

Candido v. Polymers, Inc.

166 Vt. 15 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Nov 8, 1996

Having found that Polymers qualifies as Candido’s employer under the statute, Polymers is immune from Candido’s attempted common-law negligence suit under the Act’s employer-immunity provision. 21 V.S.A. § 622. … Candido clearly accepted Polymers’s direction and control.

Oliver v. Smith

290 Mich. App. 678 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 23, 2010

The wrist and hand injury is not clearly attributable to defendant alone and instead may just as fairly be attributed to plaintiff. … The Odom Court stated that employees enjoy a qualified right to immunity if (1) the employee’s challenged acts were undertaken during the course of employment and the employee was acting, or reasonably believed he or she

Carrie Melear and Willie Stewart v. Wayne Spears, Etc., Ron Averitt, Etc.

862 F.2d 1177 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 12, 1989

Qualified Immunity. Avirett argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity in his personal capacity regarding the claims of both Stewart and Melear. … of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.