Case law

Wright v. South Arkansas Regional Health Center, Inc.

800 F.2d 199 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 2, 1986

violation of clearly established law.” … If properly supported, such an allegation could make out a violation of clearly established law and might defeat a motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity.

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

Brandt v. Monte

626 F. Supp. 2d 469 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 29, 2009

Clearly Established Violation Having found that Plaintiff has alleged a constitutional violation, the Court now turns to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, namely, whether the right violated was clearly established … whether the rights violated were clearly established.

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

Jones v. City of Cincinnati

521 F.3d 555 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 4, 2008

Police enjoy qualified immunity unless (1) the facts alleged show that the police violated a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established. Saucier v. … We have already rejected defendants’ contention that the officers should receive qualified immunity.

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

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.

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

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.

Parrish v. Nikolits

86 F.3d 1088 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 3, 1996

Once a public official or employee defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the "plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the federal "rights' allegedly violated were "clearly established.' " … Plaintiffs also contend that Nikolits is not entitled to qualified immunity, because the Elrod and Branti decisions clearly established the constitutional rule of law that Nikolits' actions violated.

Langworthy v. Dean

37 F. Supp. 2d 417 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 8, 1999

As there is not a clearly established constitutional right to have claims of criminal activity by a private actor investigated, the doctrine of qualified immunity will bar these claims. 4 Plaintiff argues that his fight to … As the treaties do not provide the Plaintiff with a clearly established right to have his claims investigated and prosecuted, all of the Defendants are protected from suit by qualified immunity. 6 V As mentioned previously

Sloman v. Tadlock

21 F.3d 1462 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 14, 1994

Government officials such as police officers are not absolutely immune from suit, but rather only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The determination of qualified immunity necessitates three inquiries: (1) the identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) the determination of whether that right- was so “clearly established” as to alert

K. J. v. Jackson

127 F.4th 1239 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 11, 2025

Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established in Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975). … We hold that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established in Goss.

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).

Benefield v. C.O. McDowall

241 F.3d 1267 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 5, 2001

upon which relief can be granted and on qualified immunity grounds. … A denial of qualified immunity that accepts the plaintiff’s version of the facts and concludes that given those facts, the defendant violated clearly established law is immediately appealable because it presents for appellate

Thomas v. Nicholson

21 V.I. 561 · Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands · Sep 20, 1985

; rather, he was only eligible for qualified immunity. … Even where the assistant commissioner was in the position of acting commissioner, he was still not deemed by the Court to be a “superior executive officer” and, therefore, could only claim a qualified immunity.

Pittman v. Nelms

87 F.3d 116 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 26, 1996

The immunity level consists of two sub-issues--whether the law governing the violation was clearly established at the time of the incident, Siegert v. … But it invokes immunity prematurely if the facts indicate no constitutional violation, clearly established or otherwise 3 Like Pittman, Graham grounded his claim on multiple provisions of the Constitution.

Pinder v. Commissioners of Cambridge

821 F. Supp. 376 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 10, 1993

The lack of precise factors does not establish Defendants’ qualified immunity. … If an official subject to qualified immunity could claim that a right is not “clearly established” because the right contains limitations or has some uncertain areas of application, then an official would always be immune

Salazar-Limon v. City of Houston

97 F. Supp. 3d 898 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 31, 2015

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 would have known … Thompson’s use of deadly force did not violate Salazar’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Fleming v. Livingston County, Ill.

674 F.3d 874 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 28, 2012

Qualified Immunity The question of whether Turner actually had probable cause to arrest Fleming is separate from the question relating to qualified immunity.3 “Qualified immunity 3 Fleming asserts that “the court’s … immunity defense.5 As we have stated before, “[c]onsulting a prosecutor may not give an officer absolute immunity from being sued for false arrest, but it goes far to establish qualified immunity.