Case law

Janet Virgili v. Michelle Gilbert, John Morrison, and Joseph Masi

272 F.3d 391 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 30, 2001

Virgili challenges the district court’s ruling that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because her Fourth Amendment right against a strip-search was not “clearly established” at the time of search. We AFFIRM. … The district court granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that they were entitled to qualified immunity from suit because Virg-ili’s right against the search .was not “clearly established” at

Anderson v. Anoka Hennepin Independent School District 11

678 N.W.2d 651 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · May 6, 2004

Second, an employee following the protocol would not be protected by common law official immunity unless the decision adopting the protocol involved sufficient judgment and discretion to qualify for official immunity. … Moreover, there was no clearly-established law in Minnesota that put Peterson on notice that state OSHA regulations were applicable beyond the employer-employee relationship.

Deutsch v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

737 F. Supp. 261 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 2, 1990

The question of whether a right is clearly established is one of law, Yalkut v. … The right the government official is alleged to have violated is “clearly established,” and hence beyond any qualified immunity, when the “contours” of the right are sufficiently unambiguous so that a reasonable official

J.R. v. Gloria

593 F.3d 73 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 27, 2010

They asserted, among other grounds, a qualified immunity defense to the § 1983 claim and immunity to the state law negligence claims based on Rhode Island's state sovereign immunity and state qualified immunity law. … We need not address whether any such "right" would have been clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, Saucier v.

Ngong Garang v. City of Ames

2 F.4th 1115 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 30, 2021

claim for violation of a constitutional or statutory right,” and second, “whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged infraction.” … In conducting this analysis, we “may review the legal issues whether conduct violated the Fourth Amendment or clearly established law,” but “cannot review whether a factual dispute is genuine.” Sok Kong v.

Lawrence v. United States

340 F.3d 952 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 21, 2003

If the right is not clearly established, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. … “[Qualified immunity shields agents ... if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed [the action] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.’ ” Hunter v.

Clarence Jason v. James LeBlanc

938 F.3d 191 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 9, 2019

The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. The district court granted Secretary LeBlanc qualified immunity. But it denied qualified immunity to Ladner, Pierce, and Tanner. … Plaintiffs can go to trial if they show that the official violated their clearly established right. 11 In other words, it’s a two-prong test— (1) whether the official violated a right; and (2) whether that right was clearly

People Ex Rel. Feuer v. Nestdrop, LLC

245 Cal. App. 4th 664 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 2016

Such a prohibition in no way threatens the continued existence of those medical marijuana businesses that qualify for limited immunity. … After explaining that Proposition D will ban all medical marijuana businesses unless they qualify for immunity, and after summarizing the conditions for immunity, the impartial summary describes the specific exemptions from

Beck v. Wilson

377 F.3d 884 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 29, 2004

violate clearly established law. … clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Drake v. City of Rochester

96 Misc. 2d 86 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 5, 1978

As the United States Supreme Court noted in Imbler ( 424 US 409 ), the procedural difference between absolute and qualified immunity is an important one. … On the other hand, "The fate of an official with qualified immunity depends upon the circumstances and motivations of his actions, as established by the evidence at trials.”

Hearn v. Internal Revenue Agents

623 F. Supp. 263 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 15, 1985

In response to Defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity, and in conformity with Elliott v. … Qualified immunity attaches unless the Defendants’ “conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known.” Harlow v.

O'Neil v. Texas Deparment of Criminal Justice

804 F. Supp. 2d 532 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 7, 2011

A defense of qualified immunity “alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof ... … Deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs violates a clearly established right under the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v.

Erin Bulfin v. Becky Rainwater

104 F.4th 1032 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 17, 2024

immunity because the alleged Fourth Amendment right was not clearly established. … Bulfin also argues the district court erred in ruling that the individual Defendants are protected by qualified immunity because the alleged Fourth Amendment violation was not a clearly established right.

Eagon v. City Of Elk City

72 F.3d 1480 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 3, 1996

relevant law was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred." … established public forum doctrine and affirm the district judge's grant of qualified immunity to the individual defendants.

Witchard v. Surampudi

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2025

As a government official, Surampudi is, at minimum, entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Leonard Rollon Crawford-El v. Patricia Britton and the District of Columbia

93 F.3d 813 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 27, 1996

For acts to which qualified immunity may apply, 2 it held that the plaintiff can prevail only by showing not just that there was a violation, but that defendant’s acts violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional … Accordingly the Court held that qualified immunity could be penetrated only on a showing of objective unreasonableness—the now familiar requirement of “clearly established” rights. Id. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Austin v. Johnson

328 F.3d 204 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 28, 2003

We have jurisdiction, because the court determined plaintiff's allegations made out the violation of a clearly established constitutional right; the denial of qualified immunity did not rest on the sufficiency of evidence … This ignores the fact that the plaintiff has the burden to rebut a qualified immunity defense "by establishing that the official's allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law." Pierce v.

Essence Welch v. Daniel Dempsey

51 F.4th 809 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 20, 2022

In a footnote, the court noted that Dempsey’s motion made “a passing reference that ‘at minimum’ he is entitled to qualified immunity,” and concluded that the law was clearly established that retaliation for protected speech … In an interlocutory appeal raising a defense of qualified immunity, this court has jurisdiction to address only an order deciding a purely legal issue of whether the facts alleged by a plaintiff show a violation of clearly

Marshall v. Columbia Lea Regional Hospital

474 F.3d 733 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 9, 2007

Nevertheless, the officers contend the district court erred in denying their post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law based on qualified immunity because no clearly established law precluded the test. … of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.”

Leroy J. Matherne, Cross-Appellant v. Charles C. Wilson, Cross-Appellees

851 F.2d 752 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 10, 1988

Fitzgerald 3 standard of “qualified” immunity, a public official *756 cannot be saddled with damages for actions that do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … have known.” 4 Wilson argues that in firing Matherne he violated no “clearly established law” and thus was entitled to Harlow immunity.