Case law

Connor v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center

135 F. Supp. 2d 1198 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 5, 2001

This is particularly true in cases involving qualified immunity, where the court must determine whether a defendant’s actions violated a clearly established right. GJR Investments, 132 F.3d at 1367 . … rules that were “clearly established” at the *1217 time it was taken.

M.M.T. v. United States

337 F. Supp. 3d 1099 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 30, 2018

The Court will only address the qualified immunity issue because the Government and Taitano are obviously entitled qualified immunity and it is unnecessary to engage in a detailed, multi-factor analysis to determine whether … Therefore, Taitano is entitled to qualified immunity. See , e.g. , United States v.

Hammett v. Oklahoma Dept. of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Services

153 F.3d 727 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 21, 1998

Because Plaintiff has alleged a clearly established right of which a reasonable person should have known, and given the scant factual record on this Rule 12(b)(6) motion, it is premature to grant qualified immunity. … Jordan, 958 F.2d 332, 336 (10th Cir.1992) (stating that court cannot frame question of qualified immunity as factual to avoid determining whether the law was clearly established at time of alleged violation). 17 AFFIRMED.

Lee v. Young

533 F.3d 505 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 24, 2008

A two-part test is used to ascertain whether qualified immunity exists. First, the plaintiff must establish that the actions of the defendant violated his constitutional rights. Triad Associates, Inc. v. … Since this right was clearly established in 1998-1999, it was also clearly established during the relevant period of time here, 2001-2002.

Kathryn M. Zorzi v. County of Putnam, Philip H. Hansen, Former Sheriff of Putnam County, Donald Maggi, Sheriff of Putnam County

30 F.3d 885 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 26, 1994

“The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Rather, he claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity because count two does not set forth a substantive due process violation, or at least not one that is clearly established.

Anderson v. Larson

327 F.3d 762 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 30, 2003

IV 20 Qualified immunity shields government officials from federal suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … The inquiry "focuses on the objective legal reasonableness of the official's acts," and the qualified immunity defense fails if the official violates a clearly established right because "a reasonably competent public official

Blouin v. Spitzer

356 F.3d 348 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 2, 2004

The court did, however, determine that they were entitled to qualified immunity, because "plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of a clearly established right. … Qualified Immunity 34 We now consider qualified immunity, which shields a government official acting in an official capacity from suit for damages under § 1983 unless the official "violated clearly established rights of which

Dean v. Childs

262 Mich. App. 48 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 13, 2004

involved ‘clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” 11 If no constitutional violation occurred, the defendant has qualified immunity from liability. 12 “Qualified immunity … Childs claims common-law immunity under the public duty doctrine.

Lopez

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 11, 2025

That 19 conclusion means that the police officers are entitled to qualified immunity. 20 In determining whether an officer has qualified immunity, courts consider (1) whether the 21 officer violated a constitutional … immunity.”

Golthy v. Alabama

287 F. Supp. 2d 1259 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 17, 2003

First, the words of a federal statute or constitutional provision may be specific enough “to establish clearly the law applicable to particular conduct and circumstances and to overcome qualified immunity, even in the total … If the circumstances facing the official are “materially similar” to those of the fact-specific case, this precedent can clearly establish the applicable law and qualified immunity will not be warranted. Id. at 1352 .

Velez-Diaz v. Vega-Irizarry

421 F.3d 71 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 2, 2005

We will, therefore, address this issue in our qualified immunity analysis. … Finally, we must determine "whether a 'reasonable officer, similarly situated, would understand that the challenged conduct violated' the clearly established right at issue." Id.

Ellsworth v. City of Lansing

34 F. Supp. 2d 571 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Dec 16, 1998

In the absence of such clearly established law existing at the time of the incidents at issue in this case, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. … Regardless, however, such a right unquestionably was not clearly established in 1997. Accordingly, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Schroeder v. McDonald

41 F.3d 1272 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 29, 1994

The qualified immunity test requires a two-part analysis: “(1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? (2) Under that law, could a reasonable officer have believed the conduct was lawful?” … Thus, defendants acted in complete disregard for clearly established prison regulations. Accordingly, defendants fail the second part of the qualified immunity test.

William Cass v. City of Dayton

770 F.3d 368 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 16, 2014

In the alternative, the district court held that House was entitled to qualified immunity because Jordan’s constitutional rights were not clearly established. … There are two general steps to the qualified immunity analysis.

Arnold v. McClain

926 F.2d 963 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 21, 1991

to good faith or qualified immunity for his actions. 2. … Plaintiff has failed to establish a violation of clearly established law by Defendant or the requisite nexus to his actions.

Arthur J. Cinelli v. Michael Cutillo and Robert Nunez

896 F.2d 650 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 23, 1990

THE DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY “[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … concerning qualified immunity.

Tinsley v. Pittari

952 F. Supp. 384 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 1, 1996

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights. … To the extent the claim is so construed, defendants’ previously-established entitlement to qualified immunity is applicable. The outcome is the same under a Fourteenth Amendment analysis.

Urban v. Henley

654 F. Supp. 870 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 20, 1987

The Court has established an elaborate set of rules on immunity for both state and federal officers. … The law does not appear to have been clearly established on the claims made by the plaintiff since the plaintiff’s case was the first controversy involving these issues.

French v. City of Casey

361 F. Supp. 3d 1011 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jan 9, 2019

"When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established … But the absence of such an opinion does not preclude a finding that the law was clearly established and so the officer is not entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 1285 .

Burgess v. West

817 F. Supp. 1520 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 25, 1993

To summarize, public officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … -Once the defendant has successfully raised the qualified immunity defense, plaintiff must come “forward with facts or allegations to show both that the defendants’ alleged conduct violated the law and that the law was clearly