Case law

Doe Ex Rel. Johnson v. South Carolina Department of Social Services

597 F.3d 163 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 5, 2010

Qualified immunity from § 1983 claims “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 … of clearly established law.”); Swanson v.

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.]

Morabito ex rel. Estate of Morabito v. Holmes

628 F. App'x 353 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 7, 2015

We have “jurisdiction over the legal question of qualified immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law.” Harris v. City of Circleville, 583 F.3d 356, 364 (6th Cir.2009) (citing Kirby v. … The qualified immunity inquiry for the denial of medical care similarly looks to see whether there was a violation of clearly established constitutional rights.

Ballentine v. Broxton

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 16, 2025

To overcome qualified immunity, Ballentine must show (1) “that he adequately alleged that his rights were violated,” and (2) “that, at the time his rights were violated, legal precedent clearly established the officials’ … Again, however, the second step of qualified immunity—whether “legal precedent clearly established the officials’ actions as unlawful”—bars Ballentine from recovering damages.3 Stevenson, 113 F.4th at 501. ______

Kovacic v. Cuyahoga County Department of Children & Family Services

809 F. Supp. 2d 754 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 25, 2011

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields from liability government officials performing discretionary functions when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “The third inquiry impacts the analysis when despite the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the official’s conduct was objectively reasonable, and so should still enjoy qualified immunity.” Id.

Sisneros v. Nix

884 F. Supp. 1313 · District Court, S.D. Iowa · Mar 6, 1995

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY A. … Delo, 999 F.2d 364, 366 (8th Cir. 1993) (first step in qualified immunity analysis was determination of whether conduct violated any clearly established right).

Dobson v. Harris

352 N.C. 77 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 16, 2000

App. 660 , 233 S.E.2d 624 (1977) (summary judgment appropriately entered against the plaintiff where the defendant supported motion by establishing affirmative defense of qualified privilege, and the plaintiff, who thereafter … In her answer defendant Harris asserted the affirmative defense of “qualified immunity,” or, more precisely, a statutory, good-faith immunity based upon her compliance with N.C.G.S. §§ 7A-543 and -550.

Wesley v. Don Stein Buick, Inc.

996 F. Supp. 1299 · District Court, D. Kansas · Feb 26, 1998

Government officials performing administrative or executive functions have qualified immunity from suit under civil rights statutes if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … “Once a defendant asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the defendants violated a law that was clearly established.” Norton v.

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.

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

Ashfaq v. Anderson

603 F. Supp. 2d 936 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 16, 2009

Anderson’s Motion to Dismiss (doc. 10), on the basis of qualified immunity. … Ashfaq has failed to allege a deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right, Dr. Anderson is entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, Dr. Ashfaq’s § 1983 claim should be and hereby is DISMISSED.

Smith v. Lejeune

203 F. Supp. 2d 1260 · District Court, D. Wyoming · May 17, 2002

If the plaintiff establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, he must then demonstrate that the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s unlawful conduct. … , the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

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.”

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

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.

Ottman v. City Of Independence

341 F.3d 751 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 1, 2003

We review de novo a denial of qualified immunity. Holloway v. … Reeves, 277 F.3d 1035 , 1037 (8th Cir.2002). 13 Government officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity unless their alleged conduct violated clearly established federal constitutional

Moodian v. County of Alameda Social Services Agency

206 F. Supp. 2d 1030 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 3, 2002

Alternatively, defendants contend that even if plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were violated, those rights were not clearly established at the time of the removal and therefore Black is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects an official from liability if “(1) the law governing the official’s conduct was clearly established; and (2) under that law, the official objectively could have believed that her conduct was lawful

Curtis v. Breathitt Cnty. Fiscal Court

288 F. Supp. 3d 789 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jan 22, 2018

Qualified Immunity for Stevens and Smith "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 … Therefore, Stevens is entitled to qualified immunity on all of Curtis's state law claims. 4.