Case law

Drendolyn Sims v. Mike Stanton

706 F.3d 954 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 3, 2012

Qualified Immunity In a claim for civil damages under § 1983, to avoid the bar of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the officer violated a constitutional right and that the right was “clearly established … That Welsh leaves open the possibility for a “rare” exception to this rule does not mean that the rule was not clearly established at the time and does not change our qualified immunity analysis.

Dawn Green v. City of Southfield, Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 26, 2018

To avoid the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff is required to plead facts demonstrating a violation of a constitutional right that is clearly established in a “particularized sense.” Johnson v. … Because the constitutional right to be free of discrimination because of race and/or sex and police “cover-ups” was clearly established, Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity.

Greene v. Barrett

174 F.3d 1136 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 19, 1999

The qualified immunity doctrine “shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional … clearly established at the time of the defendant’s actions.

Lundblad v. Celeste

924 F.2d 627 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 31, 1991

The doctrine of qualified immunity, as defined in Harlow, supra at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 , shields officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Thus the law was not clearly established on the issue, and the doctrine of official immunity shields the defendants from civil damages. *629 Accordingly, the opinion of the Court in Lundblad v.

Richko Ex Rel. Horvath v. Wayne County

819 F.3d 907 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 15, 2016

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability under § 1983 if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of No. 15-1524 … To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, a court evaluates two independent prongs: whether the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and whether that right was clearly established at

Perez v. United States

103 F. Supp. 3d 1180 · District Court, S.D. California · May 1, 2015

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff can allege the violation of a “clearly established” constitutional right. Pearson v. … Defendant Fisher "moves to dismiss the SAC, but only as to the clearly-established prong of qualified immunity....” (ECF No. 65-1 at 9). .

Morgan v. Swanson

627 F.3d 170 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 29, 2010

Qualified immunity thus shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability for civil damages but only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a … Appellees’ have alleged a violation of clearly established law; therefore, Appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Hernandez v. Parker

508 P.3d 947 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Feb 1, 2022

Sheriff Parker asserted qualified immunity as a defense to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims. … Defendants’ invocation of qualified immunity shifted the “heavy burden” to Plaintiff to establish that (1) the facts demonstrated a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right at issue was clearly established at

Mayronne v. Vaught

843 F. Supp. 1096 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Feb 23, 1994

Because it is not a clearly established constitutional right, Mr. Mayronne’s claims for malicious prosecution are barred by the theory of qualified immunity. 3. … Mayronne was not clearly established, thus barring his claim on the theory of qualified immunity. 4.

Thelma Hall v. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission, Ron Hopkins

235 F.3d 1065 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 21, 2000

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.” Yowell v. … In response, Hopkins maintains that he is entitled to qualified immunity because, once an employer engages the Pickering balancing test, the right cannot be clearly established.

Cullen v. Phillips

2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1809 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 2001

Defendants sought dismissal on several grounds including qualified immunity, laches, and failure to state a claim. … Once a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff assumes the burden of showing that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have

Melton v. City of Oklahoma City

879 F.2d 706 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 21, 1989

We hold that in so doing, Chief Gramling violated clearly established law and cannot claim the protection of qualified immunity on retrial. 3. … established law and qualified immunity may not be available to them.

Moss v. Kopp

505 F. Supp. 2d 1120 · District Court, D. Utah · Feb 16, 2007

; and accordingly, (3) the court need not address qualified immunity. … Because both orders clearly fall under his statutory authority, he would qualify for judicial immunity. Consequently, Defendants satisfy the first step of the quasi-judicial immunity analysis. 2.

Elec. Reliability Council of Tex., Inc. v. Panda Power Generation Infrastructure Fund, LLC

552 S.W.3d 297 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Apr 16, 2018

We quote Panda's live petition at length because it clearly identifies Panda's position. … itself enjoys"; and (4) "the policies underlying official and qualified immunity are simply irrelevant to that contention."

Williams v. City of Albany

936 F.2d 1256 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 30, 1991

Lack of good faith may be proved by showing that the public official’s actions violated clearly established constitutional law. Hudgins v. … Plaintiff has failed to make a showing, sufficient to overcome the claim of qualified immunity, that defendants’ actions were of the type that a reasonable police investigator would know violated the suspect’s clearly established

Mattos v. Agarano

590 F.3d 1082 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 12, 2010

clearly established right. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields the officers “from liability for civil damages [unless their conduct violated] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Charles E. Johnson v. Dan Schneiderheinz, Individually and as Sheriff of Merrick County, Nebraska, County of Merrick, Nebraska

102 F.3d 340 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 7, 1997

The sheriff moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Government officials are qualifiedly immune from liability in civil actions to the extent their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

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.

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

Ospina v. Department of Corrections, State of Del.

749 F. Supp. 572 · District Court, D. Delaware · Oct 31, 1990

In reviewing a qualified immunity claim, the District Court must determine whether a reasonable officer could have believed the defendant’s actions were lawful in light of clearly established law and of the information the … The constitutional infirmity of such police conduct thus was “clearly established” at the time of the arrest in this case.