Case law

Ginter v. Stallcup

869 F.2d 384 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 6, 1989

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Ginter challenges the decision to grant qualified immunity to Blasingame and Lee before allowing her to conduct discovery in this case. … Ginter to violate any statutory or constitutional right which had been “clearly established” prior to June 3, 1983.

Roy George, Shirley George and Sherrod Fitts v. City of St. Louis, Robert Scheetz, Albert Upchurch and Brian Gilmore

26 F.3d 55 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 6, 1994

In other words, to decide whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, “a court must determine whether the official’s action was objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established … to qualified immunity and the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.

John K. Maciver Institute for Public Policy, Inc. v. Schmitz

243 F. Supp. 3d 1028 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Mar 16, 2017

Immunity Assuming plaintiffs could prove that defendants violated the SCA and lacked good faith in doing so, there is still the question of their right to absolute or qualified immunity. … Zirkelbach, 149 F.3d 614, 618 (7th Cir. 1998) (framing qualified immunity issue regarding a claim for a violation of the Federal Wiretap Act as “whether [defendant’s] actions violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional

Binkowski v. Family & Children's Services Agency

39 F. Supp. 2d 882 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Dec 3, 1998

It is not enough for a plaintiff to allege that the right to due process of law is “clearly established” under the Fourteenth Amendment. … However, qualified immunity applies only to individuals, not government entities. See, e.g., Leatherman v.

Jacob v. Township of West Bloomfield

531 F.3d 385 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 3, 2008

This second prong of the qualified immunity test clearly weighs in Plaintiffs favor. … claim of qualified immunity.

Holloway v. Lamar County

180 F. Supp. 3d 467 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Apr 8, 2016

“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 … Therefore, because a reasonable officer would have known that tasing Plaintiff was objectively unreasonable under clearly established law, the Court does not find that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and will

Craig v. Wetzel

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2025

Qualified immunity applies to federal and state actors unless (1) the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, demonstrate a violation, and (2) the alleged right was clearly established … Supp. 623, 630-33 (D.N.J.), aff’d, 889 F.2d 1286 (3d Cir. 1989) (denying qualified immunity to a prison board based on prisoners’ clearly established right to a “safe prison environment” free from inmate violence

Hernandez v. Causey

District Court, S.D. Mississippi · May 4, 2021

CAUSEY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT In his Motion for Summary Judgment based on qualified immunity, Causey argues there is no evidence that he violated a clearly established right when he … right and 2) whether the right was clearly established.

HASSUNEH v. City of Minneapolis

560 F. Supp. 2d 764 · District Court, D. Minnesota · May 29, 2008

Here, Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims. Qualified immunity shields government officials as well as private individuals from civil liability under § 1983. … Second, the alleged right must be clearly established. Id.

Megatel Homes LLC v. City of Mansfield, Texas

District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 6, 2025

The City’s assertion that the Sherman Act claims should be dismissed because it is entitled to state-action immunity is more than an affirmative defense. Like qualified immunity, where it’s available, see Stramaski v. … And, like qualified immunity, Parker immunity is not jurisdictional. See, e.g., Teladoc v. Tex. Med. Bd., 1-15-CV-343 RP, 2015 WL 8773509, at *6 (W.D. Tex.

Catrina Johnson v. City of Minneapolis

901 F.3d 963 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 24, 2018

We first turn to the question of qualified immunity. … -11- so the district court did not address the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity test.

Walton v. NM State Land Office

821 F.3d 1204 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 19, 2016

Powell submits that his actions weren’t clearly forbidden by existing law at the time he took them so he’s entitled to qualified immunity. … Powell rightly notes that, to avoid a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show not only that her federal constitutional or statutory rights were violated but also that they were so “clearly established” at the

Tucker v. Faith Bible Chapel Int'l.

36 F.4th 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 7, 2022

favor in order to answer the legal question of whether the plaintiff has asserted a clearly established constitutional violation. … Consider qualified immunity, which shields government officials from suits for damages unless the official violates a clearly established federal constitutional or statutory right.

Hampton Co. Nat. Sur., LLC v. Tunica County, Miss.

543 F.3d 221 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 18, 2008

An uncertain right cannot be “a clearly established” right. Qualified immunity applies to the claim that Sheriff Hamp violated Due Process rights. … Unlike in the determination of qualified immunity for the Sheriff, the County cannot rely on there being no clearly established right when the Sheriff acted.

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

Jeffrey Moldowan v. Maureen Fournier

570 F.3d 698 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 2009

Defendants’ Qualified Immunity Claims Generally speaking, the rationale underlying the qualified immunity doctrine is that, “where an official’s duties legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not … qualified immunity.

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.

Hyatt v. Town of Lake Lure

225 F. Supp. 2d 647 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 26, 2002

Defendants argue in their reply brief for the first time that they are also covered by qualified immunity in that they have not violated any clearly established rights. … Qualified Immunity In their reply brief, the Defendants raise for the first time the defense of qualified immunity from suit.

Spencer v. Pew

District Court, D. Arizona · Mar 11, 2021

Qualified Immunity 9 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their 10 conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … In deciding 12 if qualified immunity applies, a court must determine: (1) whether the facts alleged show 13 the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was 14 clearly established