Case law

Toni Duncan v. Rodney Herron

687 F.3d 955 · 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 … Because Herron did not violate Duncan’s right to equal protection, this court needs not address the other prong of the qualified-immunity analysis: whether the law was clearly established that Herron’s conduct violated Duncan

Vincent v. Sitnewski

117 F. Supp. 3d 329 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 25, 2015

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … And it *343 would undermine the key virtue of qualified immunity doctrine — that if nothing else, the “clearly established” test is objective.

Baird v. Holton

806 F. Supp. 2d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 22, 2011

The doctrine of qualified immunity “shields a government official from civil liability if his conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … See Ali, 2011 WL 2462851, at *4 (qualified immunity protects a government official from civil liability when his actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Winig, J., Aplt. v. Office of DA of Phila.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2025

under the common law” and “held that immunity was not absolute but qualified and its availability depended on the circumstances of each case.” … To 5 No one disputes that Section 5725(b) clearly and unambiguously waives sovereign immunity.

Daskalea v. Washington Humane Society

577 F. Supp. 2d 90 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 2008

Circuit has explained, “[qjualified immunity shields officials from liability for damages so long as their actions were objectively reasonable, as measured in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the … if so, whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established.

Sanders v. Nunley

634 F. Supp. 474 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 25, 1985

Qualified or “good faith” immunity generally shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … In this case, Nunley has asserted and established his entitlement to qualified immunity.

Duran v. City of Douglas

904 F.2d 1372 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 4, 1990

However, the Supreme Court has established a limited exception to this rule: “[A] district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable ‘final decision’ … The legal issues involved in that appeal — whether Aguilar violated clearly established constitutional protections — are identical to those governing the question of Aguilar’s qualified immunity.

Searle v. Town of Bucksport

3 A.3d 390 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 31, 2010

The immunity exceptions are strictly construed so as to adhere to immunity as the general rule. Sanford v. … The remaining issue is whether they qualify as an appurtenance to a public building. 1.

M.C. ex rel. Crawford v. Amrhein

598 F. App'x 143 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 26, 2015

The district court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds. … While M.C. may well have a remedy under state law, 3 we hold that qualified immunity *150 bars his federal constitutional claims because the defendants did not violate M.C.’s clearly established rights.

Cruz v. Green

352 F. Supp. 3d 1213 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 7, 2019

DISCUSSION Captain Green argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity because she acted within the scope of her official duties and did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. … See Callahan , 555 U.S. at 241 , 129 S.Ct. 808 (permitting district courts to evaluate whether § 1983 defendants violated clearly established law as the initial step in a qualified immunity analysis).

Walter Warren v. State of Missouri Dick Moore Bill Armontrout Leonard Rutledge Richard A. Anderson Richard K. Bowers Keith Heidbreder Loren Stout

995 F.2d 130 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 28, 1993

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Warren’s unsafe work place claim because the law governing prison working conditions was not clearly established in 1986 — since prison work is voluntary, it

Bird v. Lampert

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 15, 2020

(2) that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” … Clearly Established Law But even if we assume that a constitutional violation occurred, defendants Lampert, Pacheco, and Weik would still be entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established

Rincover v. State, Department of Finance, Securities Bureau

128 Idaho 653 · Idaho Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1996

However, the United States Supreme Court has held that although qualified immunity is the general rule for executive officials charged with constitutional violations, absolute immunity applies to those officials performing … Because we conclude that Klein and Patty are entitled to absolute immunity, we will not consider whether the standards for the doctrine of qualified immunity have been met and will, rather, affirm the district court’s decision

Weg v. MacChiarola

995 F.2d 15 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 4, 1993

"Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages.... As long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right, they cannot be held liable." … Where statutory language may be easily read to cover particular conduct, a prosecution based on that language does not lose immunity absent "clearly established" caselaw to the contrary.

Anna Mustafa v. City of Chicago

442 F.3d 544 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 23, 2006

The defendants were protected by qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects officers performing discretionary functions from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate dearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would know

Mills v. Denny

245 Iowa 584 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Mar 9, 1954

Of .this nature are proceedings in legislative assemblies, and generally in judicial tribunals.” *592 The court here clearly had reference to the state legislative assembly. Also see Mayo v. … However, most of the courts have rejected such extension of absolute immunity and permitted such bodies only a conditional or qualified privilege. Bradley v. Heath, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 163, 22 Am. Dec. 418 ; Smith v.

Bobby Lee Griffin v. George A. Lombardi Dick D. Moore Jim M. Jones Nikki Nicks Terry Barnes James A. Gammon

946 F.2d 604 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 25, 1991

Summary judgment should be granted on qualified immunity grounds “if discovery fails to uncover evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue as to whether the defendant in fact ... violated clearly established law.” … Even though the law concerning a prisoner’s right to receive mail is clearly established, the officials may still be entitled to qualified immunity if the officials reasonably could have believed that their conduct did not

Hart v. O'Brien

127 F.3d 424 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 6, 1997

Generally speaking, qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability under federal law unless their conduct violates a “clearly established- [federal] statutory or constitutional … One important difference, however, is that official immunity does not incorporate the requirement that the plaintiff show the violation of a clearly established right.

Hoyland v. McMenomy

185 F. Supp. 3d 1111 · District Court, D. Minnesota · May 5, 2016

Qualified immunity protects government officers from § 1983 liability “unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Thus, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on the basis that Hoy-land’s First Amendment right was not clearly established.

Blue v. Koren

72 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 26, 1995

Circuit in Martin, 812 F.2d at 1432 , "[t]he 'clearly established law' and 'objective reasonableness' facets of current qualified immunity doctrine tug in opposite directions where, as here, the 'clearly established law' … When such a motion is based on assertion of qualified immunity, the first issue is whether a clearly established right is at stake. See Siegert, 500 U.S. at 232 , 111 S.Ct. at 1793 .