Case law

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Treon v. Whipple

212 F. Supp. 2d 285 · District Court, D. Vermont · Jul 9, 2002

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from suit for any actions that did not violate a clearly established constitutional right and those actions as to which the official had an objectively reasonable good faith … “The first inquiry to be made concerning qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff has ‘allegefd] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right’.” Id. (citing Siegert v.

Eugene De Boise, Sr. v. St. Louis County, Missouri

760 F.3d 892 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 28, 2014

Louis County, Missouri. 1 Officers Lively and Percich moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, and St. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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

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

Cotnoir v. University of Maine Systems

35 F.3d 6 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 13, 1994

" with the qualified immunity issue. … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

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

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. .