Case law

Jackson v. City of Bremerton

268 F.3d 646 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 5, 2001

The defense of qualified immunity, however, protects § 1983 defendants from liability for civil damages when performing discretionary functions, unless such conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory … In considering the merits of a qualified immunity defense in excessive force cases, courts previously considered whether the right was clearly established and, if so, whether, in light of such clearly established law, a reasonable

Michael M. Gorman v. Renault Robinson, George C. Cramer, and William T. Salem

977 F.2d 350 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 9, 1992

In a motion for summary judgment, the defendants argued that the doctrine of qualified immunity shielded them from suit. … The Supreme Court has made clear that qualified immunity is an immunity from suit rather than a defense to liability. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 529 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2817 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985).

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.

Davdrin Goffin v. Robbie Ashcraft

957 F.3d 858 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 24, 2020

Officer Ashcraft is entitled to qualified immunity if her conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Police officers are not entitled to qualified immunity if “(1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.”

Isengard v. New Mexico Public Education Department

708 F. Supp. 2d 1190 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 30, 2009

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. … Qualified immunity shields state officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Porter v. Ascension Parish School Board

393 F.3d 608 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 10, 2004

challenged state action was unconstitutional.”13 Even if we find that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, however, a defendant will still be entitled to qualified immunity if … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987); Barrow, 332 F.3d at 846 (second question in qualified immunity analysis is whether the “constitutional right was clearly established when the violation supposedly occured”). 13

Eaton v. Estabrook

District Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 26, 2023

By requiring the law to be clearly established to a particularized degree, qualified immunity “protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” … Relevant to the second question, “even where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was ‘

Brandee Buschmann v. Kansas City Police Department

76 F.4th 1081 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 10, 2023

The court ruled that Beck was entitled to qualified immunity, and dismissed the claim against the Board on the ground that no individual officer was liable. … Qualified immunity shields a police officer from suit unless his conduct violated a clearly established right of the plaintiff. See Harlow v.

Creighton v. Anderson

724 F. Supp. 654 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jul 14, 1989

Qualified immunity is designed to protect from liability government officials who perform discretionary functions "if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … First, a government official is immune from liability unless the constitutional right which has *658 allegedly been violated was "clearly established." Id.

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.”

Lightner v. Tremont Auto Auction, Inc.

564 F. Supp. 1112 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 22, 1983

The Court in Butz established a qualified immunity for government officials performing discretionary functions. Id. at 504, 98 S.Ct. at 2909. … Lash, 687 F.2d 996, 1007 (7th Cir.1982) (question of fact whether defendant officials should reasonably have known that their conduct would violate clearly established constitutional norms).

Breeden v. University of Mississippi Medical Center

241 F. Supp. 2d 668 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Sep 5, 2001

Under “qualified immunity,” government officials are not subject to liability for the performance of their discretionary actions unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The test for qualified immunity is understandably twofold. First, the court must determine whether the conduct alleged would have deprived a § 1983 plaintiff of a “clearly established” constitutional or statutory right.

Thompson v. City of Minneapolis

707 N.W.2d 669 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Jan 10, 2006

Rather, the specific conduct challenged was the ministerial decision of whether to instruct the student to make rip cuts with the blade guard disengaged as clearly dictated by an established protocol. Id. at 656-57 . … Anderson, the Eighth Circuit stated that, in the context of qualified immunity, a case should be submitted to the jury when the facts giving rise to the applicability of qualified immunity were disputed.

Williams v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center

440 Md. 573 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 21, 2014

Although the Health Care Providers would not qualify for immunity under subsection (a), the General Assembly clearly included them when drafting subsections (b) and (c). … That the General Assembly referred to all of Part III, including these restrictions on admittance, when establishing the prerequisites to qualifying for immunity, demonstrates its intent that the immunity extend beyond

Doran by and Through Doran v. Condon

5 F. Supp. 2d 1067 · District Court, D. Nebraska · May 26, 1998

Qualified immunity is a question of law. … Thus, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. B. Count II S.

Dennis Hamilton v. Roger v. Endell

981 F.2d 1062 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 15, 1992

Qualified Immunity Claim “Government officials who perform discretionary functions are protected from liability for civil damages as long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense; if the plaintiff proves that the right allegedly violated was clearly established, the burden shifts to the defendant official to prove that his or her conduct was reasonable

Bradshaw v. Meyer

District Court, D. Colorado · Sep 30, 2025

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … No clearly established law. Additionally, no clearly established law confirmed that Ontiveras’ actions were unconstitutional.

Anglin v. City of Aspen

552 F. Supp. 2d 1205 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 29, 2008

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from individual liability when they are performing discretionary functions that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Vicky M. v. Northeastern Educational Intermediate Unit

689 F. Supp. 2d 721 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 2009

An official is entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable official in their position at all relevant times could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct comported with established legal … NEIU Defendants The individual NEIU defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable official in their position could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct comported with established

Flowers v. Bennett

135 F. Supp. 2d 1150 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Dec 11, 2000

Even without Hill, there is good reason to believe that “clearly established” authority exists to deny qualified immunity in this case. … In a qualified immunity analysis, two questions arise: (1) Does the plaintiff allege the deprivation of a constitutional right, and (2) Was the law that the public official is alleged to have violated clearly established