Case law

Sack v. City of St. Louis

District Court, E.D. Missouri · Sep 30, 2025

“Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability in § 1983 actions when their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Herron, 687 F.3d 971, 978 (8th Cir. 2012) (rejecting argument that the “clearly established right analysis” is limited to cases involving § 1983 and qualified immunity).

Johnson v. Wolgemuth

257 F. Supp. 2d 1013 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 10, 2003

established and that the Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. … established right, qualified immunity cannot attach on summary judgment. 882 F.2d at 215-16 .

Rockefeller v. United States Court of Appeals Office, for the Tenth Circuit Judges

248 F. Supp. 2d 17 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 7, 2003

The Supreme Court has established two avenues by which public officials may receive immunity from personal liability in a civil action for damages: absolute and qualified immunity. … A public official performing a discretionary function receives qualified immunity in a civil action, provided that his or her conduct does not violate “clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights” of which

Moore v. Gunnison Valley Hospital

170 F. Supp. 2d 1080 · District Court, D. Colorado · Oct 22, 2001

When qualified immunity is raised in a Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion, the plaintiff must carry the burden of establishing that the defendant violated clearly established law. … right was clearly established.”

Osipova v. Dinkins

864 F. Supp. 360 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 6, 1994

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity has long shielded government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Thus, Martinez is only entitled to qualified immunity if, assuming the facts as set forth by the plaintiff, it was objectively reasonable for Martinez to believe, in light of clearly established law and the information he

Copsey v. Swearingen

762 F. Supp. 1250 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Apr 23, 1991

Qualified Immunity Defendants next assert qualified immunity. … Whether a defendant asserting qualified immunity may be personally liable turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the defendant’s actions assessed in light of clearly established law.

Brown v. McElroy

160 F. Supp. 2d 699 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 4, 2001

It is well-established that qualified immunity acts to shield government officials from liability under section 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … their actions did not violate a clearly established right.

Rheuark v. Shaw

477 F. Supp. 897 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 31, 1979

, and claims of qualified immunity for court reporters. … Qualified Immunity I have previously held that Dallas County has not established its qualified immunity defense and therefore it is liable for attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 .

James P. Martin v. Memorial Hospital at Gulfport, Wray Anderson, Mitchell Salloum, Edward Reid, and Myrtis Franke

86 F.3d 1391 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 10, 1996

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the order denying qualified immunity was collateral order immediately appealable under Cohen . … A second major conception animating all of the immunity doctrines is that “where an official’s duties legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated, the public interest may be better served

Alicia Street v. Gerald Leyshock

41 F.4th 987 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 27, 2022

We conclude that the allegations in this case are insufficient to establish a plausible claim that the defendant officers violated any plaintiff’s clearly established right against the use of excessive force. … doctrine means that they did not violate a clearly established right.

Flanagan v. Anne Arundel County

593 F. Supp. 2d 803 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 22, 2009

A motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity must be granted unless plaintiffs state plausible facts that the defendants violated their clearly established federal rights. McKenna v. … A court should approach qualified immunity in three stages: (1) whether a constitutional right has been violated; (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation, and (3), if so, then whether a

Wilkinson v. Torres

610 F.3d 546 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 6, 2010

However, an officer using deadly force is entitled to qualified immunity, unless the law was clearly established that the use of force violated the Fourth Amendment. See Brosseau v. … The qualified immunity inquiry consists of two parts: (1) “whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged ... or shown ... make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and (2) “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly

Torres-Rivera v. Calderón-Serra

328 F. Supp. 2d 237 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 5, 2004

Qualified Immunity “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Therefore, the Court has room for only one conclusion: that plaintiffs have failed to establish the second prong of the qualified immunity test, that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Turpin v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2024

Thus, an officer conducting a search “is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 243–44. … But even putting aside the different facts that case presented, a decision of a district court cannot clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes.

Boyer v. County of Washington

971 F.2d 100 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 10, 1992

Finally, DeClue asserts that notwithstanding any factual dispute, she is entitled to qualified immunity because the law is not clearly established that the Fourth Amendment requires determination of probable cause before, … Likewise, because qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,” the denial of a claim of qualified immunity is also immediately appealable. Id. at 526-27 , 105 S.Ct. at 2815-16 .

Susan Lynn Roberts v. Charles Timothy Kling

144 F.3d 710 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 20, 1998

“First, the plaintiff must show the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right; second, the plaintiff must show the right the defendant’s conduct violated was clearly established such that a reasonable … Roberts attempts to cast this determination as factual and also seeks to demonstrate factual disputes on point; however, we agree with the district court that Roberts has not demonstrated that Kling violated clearly established

David Gavitt v. Bruce Born

835 F.3d 623 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 1, 2016

“Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell v. … To the extent due process could be deemed to include such an obligation, it is not yet a matter of clearly established law and defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Brantley v. Wysocki

145 F. Supp. 3d 407 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2015

Corporal Wysocki is entitled to qualified immunity on Brantley’s First Amendment Retaliation claim “Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate … The next question is determining if Brantley’s constitutional right is clearly established.

The Schatz Family v. Gierer

399 F. Supp. 2d 973 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Mar 24, 2004

the motions to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds. … In short, even if the plaintiffs' could be said to have stated a violation of their constitutional rights, the Court finds that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established

Griffin v. Strong

739 F. Supp. 1496 · District Court, D. Utah · May 14, 1990

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on defendant Strong’s affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … or inconsistent with that “clearly established” law.