Case law

Butts v. City of Bowling Green

374 F. Supp. 2d 532 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Jun 23, 2005

“To overcome an officer’s entitlement to qualified immunity, however, a plaintiff must establish: (1) a substantial showing that the defendant stated a deliberate falsehood or showed reckless disregard for the truth and ( … violation was clearly established and whether, in light of the clearly established law, Detective Raley’s actions were unreasonable.

Phillip Ransom v. Anthony Grisafe

790 F.3d 804 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 22, 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 … To overcome the defense of qualified immuni *811 ty, Ransom must have shown that the officers’ actions violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time of their alleged misconduct.

Williams v. Pollard

44 F.3d 433 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 25, 1995

In order to survive a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, plaintiffs must effectively pass two hurdles: First, the allegations must state a claim of the violation of clearly established law. … Pollard is, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. III.

Amy Sanders v. Lamar Jones

845 F.3d 721 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 9, 2017

Jones is entitled to qualified immunity because Sanders cannot establish the violation of a constitutional right. … immunity grounds); see generally Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011) (holding that a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff establishes the violation of a clearly established constitutional

Peterson v. Heymes

277 F. Supp. 3d 913 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Sep 29, 2017

Qualified Immunity MSP Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating both that the challenged conduct violates a constitutional or statutory right and that the right was so clearly established at

Hawley v. Nelson

968 F. Supp. 1372 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Apr 4, 1997

Qualified immunity is available (1) if the law as it relates to the relevant facts was not clearly established or (2) if a reasonable official could have believed the alleged conduct was lawful in light of the clearly established … clearly established and defendants are entitled to at least qualified immunity from suit.

Scott Kampas v. City of St. Louis, Missouri

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 31, 2025

It found the officers were entitled to qualified immunity regarding the Plaintiffs’ unlawful seizure claim as it was not clearly established that the Plaintiffs’ arrests violated the Fourth Amendment. … An officer does not violate an “individual’s ‘clearly established’ rights for qualified immunity purposes if he nevertheless had arguable probable cause to make the arrest.” Brown, 40 F.4th at 901 (citation omitted).

Eugene De Boise, Sr. v. St. Louis County, Missouri

760 F.3d 892 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 28, 2014

Louis County, Missouri. 1 Officers Lively and Percich moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, and St. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known

Mason Ex Rel. Mason v. Schenectady City School District

879 F. Supp. 215 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 21, 1993

There is, in short, no controversy about whether punitive damages are available against individual defendants sued in their individual capacities. 5 (5) QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The individual defendants claim entitlement to qualified … The individual defendants seek qualified immunity, however.

Jacquelyn M. Chagnon v. Griffin Bell

642 F.2d 1248 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 14, 1980

defense only in an area of “clearly established” law. … Rather, the question is whether the conduct complained of transgressed “clearly established” constitutional limits.

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.

Jane Doe v. Petaluma City School District

54 F.3d 1447 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 12, 1995

"On review of a denial of qualified immunity, '[w]e have jurisdiction only to decide if defendant's conduct violated ... clearly established [law].' " Pelletier v. … Because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense from suit, not merely from liability, "[u]nless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity

Jack G. Kelly v. Charles C. Foti, Jr., City of New Orleans, John Doe, and Jane Roe

77 F.3d 819 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 29, 1996

Denial of summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity is immediately appealable to the extent that the question on appeal is whether the undisputed facts amount to a violation of clearly established law. … a qualified immunity defense.

Hartsoe v. Tucker

371 Mont. 539 · Montana Supreme Court · Sep 10, 2013

¶8 Montana Constitution, Article II, Section 18 holds that immunity from suit may be established by a two-third vote of the Legislature. … ¶11 Hartsoe also raises issues of qualified immunity for state employees, and asserts a malicious prosecution claim for the first time on appeal.

Cummins v. Campbell

44 F.3d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 28, 1994

We hold that the Regents were entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional law they allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time they briefly suspended authority to show the film. … However, the district court agreed with Appellees that the law Appellees allegedly violated was not clearly established and granted them summary judgment based on qualified immunity. A.

Aboufariss v. City of De Kalb

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 7, 1999

To determine whether qualified immunity applies to a defendant in section 1983 actions, courts examine whether the defendant’s conduct violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights and whether the rights were clearly established … Once the defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff carries the burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right. Forman , 104 F.3d at 957-58 .

Wesley v. Don Stein Buick, Inc.

996 F. Supp. 1299 · District Court, D. Kansas · Feb 26, 1998

Government officials performing administrative or executive functions have qualified immunity from suit under civil rights statutes if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … “Once a defendant asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the defendants violated a law that was clearly established.” Norton v.

Natasha Thomas Susan Gibbs and Edwina Lewis v. Ann Cohen Glenn Craig James Embry and Susan Fischer, in Their Individual Capacities

304 F.3d 563 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 23, 2002

a given set of facts violates clearly established law.” … Qualified Immunity We must also decide whether, in light of clearly established law applicable on the date of the eviction, a reasonable officer would have believed that Defendants’ conduct deprived Plaintiffs of their Fourth

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.”

Lenzer v. Flaherty

106 N.C. App. 496 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 7, 1992

immunity because their conduct was not clearly unlawful under existing precedent. … In general, qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability for performing discretionary functions to the extent that such conduct does not violate “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional