Case law

Davis v. Chalstrom

595 F. App'x 627 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 23, 2014

Chal-strom has taken an interlocutory appeal, contending that he deserves qualified immunity. … Then the purely legal question for the court would be simply whether Chastrom walked on Davis’s curtilage in a way that violated clearly established law.

Watkins v. Millennium School

290 F. Supp. 2d 890 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 18, 2003

Qualified immunity extends to individuals performing discretionary functions, unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … In elaborating on “clearly established,” the Supreme Court stated in Anderson v.

Estate of B.I.C. v. Gillen

761 F.3d 1099 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 31, 2014

On appeal the estate argues that Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity because under clearly established law she committed sufficient affirmative acts to be liable for creating or increasing the danger to Brook … The estate has failed to show that Defendant’s behavior was a clearly established violation of Brook’s constitutional rights at the time it occurred. Defendant is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. III.

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.

Jones v. PRAMSTALLER

678 F. Supp. 2d 609 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Dec 22, 2009

“Ordinarily, a Supreme Court or Sixth Circuit [Court of Appeals] decision on point is necessary” to clearly establish the right in the relevant context and defeat qualified immunity. See Reynolds v. … Cabinet for Workforce Dev., 289 F.3d 958 , 964 (6th Cir.2002). 5 *629 This means that Jones cannot defeat the qualified-immunity defense with preAugust 28, 2007 precedent “clearly establishing” his general right to be free

Rodriguez v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

627 F.3d 1259 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 30, 2010

We have accepted interlocutory appeals under the collateral order doctrine where the issue is a sovereign’s absolute immunity from suit and where qualified immunity is at issue. See, e.g., Paine v. … Con- sistent with our prior decisions, we hold that the government contractor defense does not confer absolute or qualified immunity.

Muslim v. Frame

897 F. Supp. 215 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 1995

Whether the Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Defendants’ final argument is that summary judgment should be granted because they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects governmental officers from damages claims when their alleged conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

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.

Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, Inc.

639 So. 2d 730 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jul 5, 1994

immunity, the language of the statute would have clearly reflected this intent.” … Employing the former approach and tailoring the definition to fit the qualified immunity provision, courts have found that lack of malice or good faith can be proven by establishing a reasonable basis for the conduct.

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

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.

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.

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.”

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 .

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.

Burgos-Yantin v. Municipality of Juana Díaz

669 F. Supp. 2d 191 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Nov 6, 2009

The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing “discretionary functions from ... civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “[A] defendant who claims qualified immunity must do so either [1] on the theory that the asserted right is not clearly established or [2] on the theory that the conduct attributed to him satisfies the test of objective legal

Young v. McKune

280 F. Supp. 2d 1250 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 30, 2003

Qualified immunity provides government officials immunity from suit as well as from liability for their discretionary acts. Mitchell v. … The Supreme Court has established a two-part approach to determine if qualified immunity applies.

Noel Dean v. Darshan Phatak

911 F.3d 286 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 20, 2018

matter of law, be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” … Dean counters that the district court properly denied summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because Phatak created a false, misleading, and inaccurate autopsy report and violated Dean’s clearly-established constitutional

Evans v. Morgan

304 F. Supp. 2d 1100 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Sep 25, 2003

Defendant contends both that plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for a violation of due process and that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established … Qualified Immunity Defendant contends that plaintiffs claim should be dismissed because defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry.