Case law

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.

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

Lutfi Saalim v. Walmart, Inc.

97 F.4th 995 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 3, 2024

Qualified Immunity Bretzloff claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity on Saalim’s § 1983 Fourth Amendment claim against him. … entitling them to qualified immunity.

Craig v. Wetzel

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2025

Qualified immunity applies to federal and state actors unless (1) the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, demonstrate a violation, and (2) the alleged right was clearly established … Supp. 623, 630-33 (D.N.J.), aff’d, 889 F.2d 1286 (3d Cir. 1989) (denying qualified immunity to a prison board based on prisoners’ clearly established right to a “safe prison environment” free from inmate violence

Penate v. Sullivan

73 F.4th 10 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 11, 2023

In the alternative, the district court found that Detective Sullivan was entitled to qualified immunity, because it was not clearly established that officers were required to either knock and announce in this situation … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages "unless their conduct violated 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" Lawless v.

Business Leaders In Christ v. The University of Iowa

991 F.3d 969 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 22, 2021

The court also granted the individual defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity because it concluded that the law was not clearly established. … Instead, the focus of this appeal is limited to whether, for purposes of qualified immunity, the law was clearly established that the individual defendants’ conduct violated those rights.

Simons v. Marshall

369 Ark. 447 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 26, 2007

In this regard, Simons argues that Marshall failed to allege facts sufficient to establish malice and in the absence of malice, he is entitled to qualified immunity under section 19-10-305(a). … There, this court recognized that an official is immune from suit if his actions did not violate clearly established principles of law of which a reasonable person would have knowledge.

Myers v. Potter

422 F.3d 347 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 7, 2005

violated, and (2) whether that right was clearly established.” … by Officer Hutchins was clearly established at the time Myers was taken into police custody.

Kissner v. Orr

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 17, 2022

The Court, however, did not dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Orr or Rogers based on qualified immunity. … See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19 (“If the law at that time was not clearly established, an official could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments, nor could he fairly be said to “know” that

Marantes v. Miami-Dade County

649 F. App'x 665 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 28, 2016

Thus, the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacity unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Fleming v. State Department of Public Safety

237 Ariz. 414 · Arizona Supreme Court · Jul 9, 2015

Before trial, DPS moved for a jury instruction on qualified immunity under § 12-820.02(A)(7). … , qualified immunity, and affirmative defenses for public entities and employees).

Ortiz v. Morris

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Apr 27, 2020

Following discovery, Morris moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Whether an officer is immune "turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time [the action] was taken" (quotations and citation omitted

Vance v. Barrett

345 F.3d 1083 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 30, 2003

deciding whether the prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity: “(1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established? … In 1995, we held that our law regarding retaliation against inmates was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, see Schroeder v.

Armstrong v. City of Greensboro

190 F. Supp. 3d 450 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 6, 2016

They also argue for *464 dismissal based on qualified immunity, asserting Plaintiff failed to plead sufficiently that Daughtry deprived him of his “clearly established constitutional rights.” … An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity if he has violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 .

Robert O’CONNOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Walter H. Clark, Robert E. Paaswell, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

985 F.2d 1362 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 12, 1993

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … It is the plaintiff who bears the burden of establishing the existence of the allegedly clearly established constitutional right.

State v. Gear

236 Ariz. 289 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Nov 20, 2014

“a full assessment of the qualifying patient’s medical history.” … ¶17 In construing statutes, we apply a word’s “usual and commonly understood meaning unless the legislature clearly intended a different meaning.”

Connecticut ex rel. Blumenthal v. Crotty

346 F.3d 84 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 30, 2003

Disagreeing with Appellants, the district court denied qualified immunity after determining that Yolovar’s rights were clearly established at the time of enforcement and that Appellants’ enforcement of the Nonresident Lobster … Qualified immunity is warranted if either *102 (1) the official’s actions did not violate clearly established law, or (2) even if the actions violated a clearly established law, the official was objectively reasonable in

Ayers v. Ryan

152 F.3d 77 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 28, 1998

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for damages resulting from the performance of discretionary' official functions if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The district court concluded that Ryan was entitled to qualified immunity because Ayers could not “demonstrate that Ryan’s refusal to call certain witnesses was a clearly established violation of the Due Process Clause.”

Stoneking v. Bradford Area School District

882 F.2d 720 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 16, 1989

Bradford Area School Dist., 667 F.Supp. 1088, 1098 (W.D.Pa.1987). *723 On appeal, defendants argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they had no clearly established duty to protect Stoneking, and therefore … The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if reasonable officials in the defendants’ position at the relevant time could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct comported with established

Meyers v. Yamato Kogyo Co.

2020 Ark. 136 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 9, 2020

They were not involved in employment decisions at Arkansas Steel Associates, such as hiring or firing employees, paying wages, training, providing workers’ compensation or other benefits, or establishing work schedules. … In other words, “referential and qualifying phrases, where no contrary intention appears, relate only to the last antecedent.”