Case law

Billingsley v. St. Louis County

70 F.3d 61 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 14, 1995

It held that government officials are generally immune from suit in performing discretionary duties if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … have a clearly established right to be free from patronage dismissals.

Robert Reeves v. Wayne County

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 2025

and therefore entitled to only the protection of the qualified immunity.” … Second, we hold that prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity only for judicial or quasi-judicial functions, and qualified immunity for administrative or investigative acts.

Watson v. City of Kansas City

185 F. Supp. 2d 1191 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 21, 2001

. • Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects state actors from liability when acting within the scope of their employment. … The Supreme Court has established a two-part approach to determine if qualified immunity applies.

Walker v. Tyler County Commission

886 F. Supp. 540 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · May 22, 1995

An executive official is entitled to qualified immunity where an objective observer could find that the officer reasonably believed that his conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. See e.g. … any clearly established constitutional rights of the plaintiff.

Tiramani v. Johnson

307 F. Supp. 3d 31 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 8, 2018

I agree that the defendants are protected by qualified immunity. … There was no "clearly established" law prohibiting warrantless entry in similar circumstances in the absence of a sign of a break-in.

Comsys Incorporated v. Frank Pacetti

893 F.3d 468 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 20, 2018

Clearly established law does not tell us what expectation of privacy a contractor has in such a situation, which means that the appellants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects public employees who do not violate clearly established law.

Lopez Lopez v. Aran

699 F. Supp. 365 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Nov 14, 1988

At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendants moved for a directed verdict on the basis of qualified immunity. … For reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS the motion and directs a verdict in favor of the defendants on the basis of qualified immunity. *366 The doctrine of qualified immunity applies to government officials performing

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.

Axson-Flynn v. Johnson

356 F.3d 1277 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 3, 2004

“Qualified immunity shields public officials from [section] 1983 liability if their actions did not ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Because the law is clearly established and there exists a material factual issue as to the objective reasonableness of Defendants’ actions, the qualified immunity defense to the free speech claim must fail on summary judgment

Anilao v. Spota

774 F. Supp. 2d 457 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2011

Legal Standard If absolute immunity does not apply, government actors may be shielded from liability for civil damages by qualified immunity, ie., if their “conduct did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights, or … Cnty. of Suffolk, 316 F.3d 368, 385 (2d Cir.2003); see also Fielding, 257 Fed.Appx. at 401 (“The police officers, in turn, are protected by qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established law, or it

Bender v. General Services Administration

539 F. Supp. 2d 702 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 5, 2008

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability for constitutional torts “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which *713 a reasonable person … Qualified immunity protects a defendant from suits for violations only of constitutional rights that are not "clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. Saucier v.

Lebron v. Rumsfeld

764 F. Supp. 2d 787 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Feb 17, 2011

Qualified Immunity Defendants further argue that even if Padilla could assert a viable cause of action, they would still be protected from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … are entitled to qualified immunity on all of Plaintiffs’ claims.

R. H. v. ED WAGNER

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Oct 11, 2022

When a party moves for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity,4 that party bears the burden of establishing that he was entitled to the protection of said immunity. … ’ and ‘qualified immunity’ are used interchangeably in Georgia case law to refer to the type of immunity that sometimes shields government employees from individual liability[.]”

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

Christophel v. Kukulinsky

61 F.3d 479 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 3, 1995

The individual defendants moved for summary judgment, claiming that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they had not violated a clearly established constitutional right to procedural due process. … When a defendant asserts qualified immunity on summary judgment, the court may determine the currently applicable law and whether that law was clearly established at the time of the actions in question.

Skehan v. Village Of Mamaroneck

465 F.3d 96 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 26, 2006

If those facts would constitute a deprivation, the court should grant qualified immunity if (1) the legal right said to be violated was not clearly established at the time of the defendant's conduct; or (2) the defendant's … The individual defendants' qualified immunity turns on whether they violated clearly established federal law; the county commission's liability turns on the allocation of law enforcement power in Alabama. 38 Id. at 51 , 115

Vaughn v. Ricketts

663 F. Supp. 401 · District Court, D. Arizona · May 29, 1987

In Ward , the court rejected the defendant’s qualified immunity defense and held that a 1981 visual body cavity search of a misdemeanor arrestee conducted in the absence of a reasonable grounds was a violation of clearly … The burden of overcoming an official’s qualified immunity by demonstrating the existence of a clearly established right rests with the plaintiff. Davis v.

Wesley Taylor v. Richard K. Bowers, Carl Doerhoff, Kent Grewe, Maryland Butts, Helen Farr, Loren Stout

966 F.2d 417 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 31, 1992

The case law that governs whether the defendants are entitled to a qualified immunity defense is well established. See, e.g., Givens, 900 F.2d at 1231 . … When the plaintiff fails to allege a violation of clearly established law, “a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

Matwyuk v. Johnson

22 F. Supp. 3d 812 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · May 23, 2014

Defendant Fildey is not Entitled to Qualified Immunity.820 a. Constitutional Violation.822 i. Government versus Private Speech .822 ii. Facial Challenge.824 iii. As Applied Challenge.826 b. Clearly Established.826 B. … clearly established.”

Dennis Wolfel v. Nick Sanborn

666 F.2d 1005 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 14, 1982

As our decisions make clear, whether such immunity has been established depends on facts peculiarly within the knowledge and control of the defendant. . .. … The burden would then be upon the plaintiff to show either that a subjective, bad faith intent to harm him motivated the official or that the official knew or should have known that his action infringed a clearly established