Case law

Pennington v. Hobson

719 F. Supp. 760 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 4, 1989

Only those public officials who can show that their conduct was not violative of any of the plaintiffs clearly established rights are entitled to qualified immunity. Harlow v. … In the qualified immunity analysis, the issue was whether a reasonable police officer would have known that the arrest violated clearly established law.

Goleta Union Elementary School District v. Ordway

166 F. Supp. 2d 1287 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 12, 2001

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … /Portland, 988 F.2d at 872 . 14 Although the counter-claimants have met the burden of showing the right at issue was clearly established, Rigby nevertheless may be entitled to qualified immunity if she can show that a reasonable

K. J. v. Jackson

127 F.4th 1239 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 11, 2025

Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established in Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975). … We hold that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established in Goss.

La Belle v. County of St. Lawrence

85 A.D.2d 759 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 3, 1981

In addition, the case of Doe v County of Suffolk ( 494 F Supp 179, 182 ) states that the immunity under section 419 of the Social Services *761 Law is a qualified good faith immunity only. … Furthermore, it should be noted that contrary to defendants’ assertion, since the immunities are at best qualified immunities, plaintiffs did not have the burden to plead bad faith (Gomez v Toledo, 446 US 635 ).

Don Blankenship v. Joe Manchin, Iii, in His Individual Capacity and in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of West Virginia

471 F.3d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 20, 2006

Finding a constitutional violation of a clearly established right, the district court denied the application of qualified immunity. This appeal followed. II. … As Blankenship’s complaint alleges a constitutional violation of a clearly established right, qualified immunity does not attach to the Governor’s actions.

Hill v. Washington State Department of Corrections

628 F. Supp. 2d 1250 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 31, 2009

Second, Plaintiffs contend that no individual Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable person would know that enforcing the DOC Policy violates a clearly established constitutional right. … Qualified Immunity Defendants also urge that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs have not alleged violation of a clearly established constitutional right and the pre-conviction eligibility requirement

Ronkin v. Vihn

71 F. Supp. 3d 124 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 16, 2014

Qualified immunity shields 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 … Put succinctly, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff alleges (1) a violation of a constitutional right that (2) was “clearly established” at the time of the violation.” Saucier v.

Scott Furman Maxey, a Minor, by His Mother & Next Friend, Dianna Maxey v. Robert Fulton, Individually Julia Teska, Individually Harold E. Goldman, Individually Heriberto Martinez, Individually John Dentist, Individually John Doctor, Individually Jane Doctor, Individually, and James Borren, Individually, Joseph Donald Cole, by His Mother & Next Friend, Virginia Cole v. Robert Fulton, Individually Julia Teska, Individually Harold E. Goldman, Individually Luis A. Reinoso, Individually John Doctor, Individually Jane Doctor, Individually John Dentist, Individually, and James Borren, Individually

890 F.2d 279 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 29, 1989

The Court reasoned that a denial of qualified immunity is conclusive because the court is deciding either that (1) the defendant violated clearly established law and is not entitled to immunity, or (2) that if the facts are … Mitchell itself recognizes that there will be times when discovery is proper: 13 Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled

Belcher v. Oliver

898 F.2d 32 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 12, 1990

We disagree and hold defendants entitled to qualified immunity on these claims because they committed no violation of clearly established constitutional law. In so holding, we reverse the judgment of the district court. … The individual officers are thus entitled to qualified immunity on the above claims.

Mitchell Garraway v. Jacquiline Ciufo

113 F.4th 1210 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 3, 2024

As the Supreme Court stated in Mitchell: The conception animating the qualified immunity doctrine . . . is that where an official’s duties legitimately require action in which clearly established … And, of course, there’s a class of Bivens cases where raising a qualified immunity defense would be frivolous. Qualified immunity is only available when the constitutional law is not “clearly established.” See Wilk v.

Demaree v. Pederson

887 F.3d 870 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 23, 2018

"The doctrine of 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 … (ii) Whether the constitutional right was clearly established We move to the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry-whether the relevant judicial precedents at the time of the incident clearly gave notice that what

Ward v. Noonan

147 F. Supp. 3d 262 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 2015

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are immune from suit for damages where their conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Marcus Torry v. City of Chicago

932 F.3d 579 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 2, 2019

In any event, the court said, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the stop did not violate clearly established law. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from li- ability for civil damages as long as their actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Kameron Evans v. John Dodd

114 F.4th 946 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 15, 2024

Qualified immunity will shield the Officers “from legal liability unless: (1) [they] violated a constitutional right, and (2) that constitutional right was clearly established so that a reasonable officer would know of the … “Clearly established” means that “[t]he precedent must be clear enough that every reasonable official would interpret it to establish the particular rule the plaintiff seeks to apply.” Brown v. City of St.

Grossman v. United States

District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 19, 2025

While Defendant Rezak raises a qualified immunity defense in his support brief, courts in this Circuit have long held that qualified immunity “turns on factual questions that cannot be resolved at [the motion to dismiss … Supp. 2d 659, 666 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (“[r]esolution of qualified immunity depends on the determination of certain factual questions that cannot be answered at this stage of the litigation.” Denton v.

Biase v. Kaplan

852 F. Supp. 268 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 9, 1994

In order to defeat an assertion of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant official violated a “clearly established” right held by the plaintiff. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

McLenagan v. Karnes

27 F.3d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 30, 1994

Rizzo, supra, is our leading case addressing the issue of qualified immunity in the excessive force context. … Simply put, under Virginia law, sovereign immunity is not available to a defendant whose culpability extends beyond mere negligence. *1009 Sovereign immunity, like qualified immunity, is only available to public officials

Gary Thompson v. Andy Shock

852 F.3d 786 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 28, 2017

The district court determined that Thompson’s claimed First Amendment right was not clearly established under the Pickering–Connick test, granted qualified immunity to Sheriff Shock in his individual capacity, and dismissed … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields a government official acting in his individual capacity from liability “unless his conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Ann deWet v. G. Russell Rollyson, Jr.

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Oct 2, 2025

Qualified immunity “shields public officials from civil liability [under § 1983] unless they violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct … For starters, “unpublished opinions [of this court] ‘cannot be considered in deciding whether particular conduct violated clearly established law for purposes of adjudging entitlement to qualified immunity

Prager v. LaFaver

180 F.3d 1185 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 15, 1999

LaFaver contends the law did not clearly establish that the First Amendment protected Mr. Prager’s speech. Pickering v. … We turn to the question of whether this law was clearly established when Mr. LaFaver acted against Mr. Prager.