Case law

Little v. Smith

114 F. Supp. 2d 437 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 17, 2000

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … [Qualified immunity is an immunity from suit, and not merely a defense to liability....

Potter v. City of Hanceville (In Re Potter)

354 B.R. 301 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama · Nov 6, 2006

A plaintiff can overcome qualified immunity by a showing that (1) the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … While there may have been a violation of a constitutional or statutory right of the plaintiff, the defendants would still be entitled to summary judgment as to qualified immunity if this right were not clearly established

Estrella v. Menifee

275 F. Supp. 2d 452 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 17, 2003

Qualified Immunity Assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff has adequately alleged a violation of his constitutional rights, defendants would still be dismissed from this lawsuit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Here, plaintiff fails the second and third prongs of the qualified immunity analysis.

Fisher v. Ahmed

153 N.E.3d 612 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2020

Even assuming that the facts and allegations of the complaint conclusively established that Ahmed is generally personally immune from liability, the complaint does not conclusively establish the inapplicability of an exception … Once established, a qualified privilege can be defeated by a clear and convincing showing that the communication was made with actual malice.

Hubbard v. Taylor

452 F. Supp. 2d 533 · District Court, D. Delaware · Sep 20, 2006

“Qualified immunity shields state officials from suit where their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Id. (quoting Harlow v. … If the court concludes that the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, then it must deny the defendant the protection afforded by qualified immunity. Id.

Charles Bella v. Lee Chamberlain and Curtis Meyers

24 F.3d 1251 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 20, 1994

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 rights of … The very purpose of qualified immunity is to "weed out” suits that fail to assert the violation of a clearly established constitutional right "without requiring a defendant ... to engage in expensive and time consuming preparation

Allen v. Sakai

48 F.3d 1082 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 15, 1994

established constitutional rights, *1086 defeating defendants’ claims to qualified immunity. … established constitutional rights, defeating defendants’ claims to qualified immunity.

Steele v. City of Bemidji

242 F. Supp. 2d 624 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jan 2, 2003

This shield is known as qualified immunity. To determine whether the five above-named defendants have qualified immunity in this case, the Court makes a three-pronged inquiry. … To withstand a defense of qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, a plaintiff must assert a violation of a constitutional or statutory right; that right must have been clearly established at the time of the violation

Walton v. Ballard

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 30, 2018

established federal law.” … Johnson, 647 F.3d 87, 103 (4th Cir. 2011) (“The rule and analytical framework announced by the Supreme Court in Strickland ‘unquestionably qualifies as “clearly established” federal law under § 2254(d).’”

Valdez v. United States

58 F. Supp. 3d 795 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Nov 7, 2014

“The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at 1866 (quoting Hope, 536 U.S. at 739 , 122 S.Ct. 2508 ). … The Court begins with the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the right at issue was clearly established.

Bonnie Lee Hinchman v. Edwin L. Moore Jr. And Robert A. Dombrowski

312 F.3d 198 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 2, 2002

Immunity The defendants maintain, as alternative defenses, that they are entitled to both absolute and qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions will not incur liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Cannon v. City & County of Denver

998 F.2d 867 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 12, 1993

Order of Dismissal at 8. ’ The court found that the officers did not act in violation of clearly established law. It therefore concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. … established rights as to be entitled to a qualified immunity defense.

State Board of Chiropractic Examiners v. Stjernholm

935 P.2d 959 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Apr 7, 1997

When only qualified immunity applies and the suit is for damages, a section 1983 claim must allege violation of a clearly established constitutional right and material facts of misconduct, under circumstances which reveal … To withstand a motion for summary judgment in the qualified immunity context, violation of a clearly established constitutional right 15 and material facts of misconduct must be pleaded.

Dennis Wiertella v. Lake Cnty., Ohio

141 F.4th 775 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 24, 2025

Qualified immunity To overcome Snow’s and Watson’s qualified-immunity defense, the Estate must establish (1) that Snow and Watson violated Wiertella’s constitutional rights, and (2) that the governing caselaw “clearly … Sheehan, 575 U.S. 600, 613 (2015) (“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”).

Wilkerson v. Stalder

329 F.3d 431 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 14, 2003

The court must engage in a two-step analysis to determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity. … First, the court must determine whether the plaintiff’s allegations make out a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Wershing v. Hinckley Township

36 F. App'x 179 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 15, 2002

Defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, which the district court denied. Defendants now raise five issues. … Second, whether Wershing has established that the constitutional right allegedly violated was a clearly established right of which a reasonable official in the individual Defendants’ position would have known.

Heap v. Carter

112 F. Supp. 3d 402 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 1, 2015

Qualified immunity is available where a govérnment official performing discretionary functions “does not violate clearly established statutory-or constitutional rights of which a- reasonable person would have known.” … and if other appellate federal courts have split on the question of whether an asserted right exists, the right cannot be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.

Garson v. Hendlin

141 A.D.2d 55 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 26, 1988

While it is true that the cloak of a qualified immunity may also serve to protect commentary of dubious probative worth, the policy interests furthered by recognition of the privilege serve as a counterweight to any incidental … The plaintiff has not established otherwise.

James Harold Peterson Paula Peterson v. City of Plymouth Michael Ridgley David Lindman Mark Bevins

60 F.3d 469 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 14, 1995

If the officers did not have probable cause, a second inquiry is necessary to determine whether the officers are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity. 6 The officers *474 are immune from liability if, in light of clearly … In light of this clearly established law, Officer Ridgley did not act in an objectively reasonable manner.

Smith v. Daniel

452 S.W.3d 575 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 11, 2014

clearly established and raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right. … her actions did not violate clearly established principles of law of which a reasonable person would have knowledge.