Case law

Hlad Ex Rel. Shipley v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass'n

305 F. Supp. 2d 830 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Feb 27, 2004

Qualified Immunity Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials who perform discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Accordingly, the Court concludes that, even if the qualified immunity doctrine applies to Defendant Carter, he has not established that he is entitled to application of qualified immunity at this stage of the litigation.

Robinson v. City of West Allis

239 Wis. 2d 595 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Dec 13, 2000

When faced with the defense of qualified immunity the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that a defendant's conduct violated " 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … While it is clearly established that an individual has a right to be free from excessive force, our qualified immunity inquiry must be much more particularized as to the facts of each case. Anderson v.

Vega, Alfredo v. Anderson

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Sep 24, 2020

Summary judgment to defendants would be required under the doctrine of qualified immunity. See D.C. v. Wesby, 138 S. … Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (Government officials entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability in lawsuit unless conduct violated federal statutory or constitutional right and unlawfulness of conduct was “clearly established

Parks v. City of Brewer

56 F. Supp. 2d 89 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 16, 1999

Qualified Immunity To assess a claim of qualified immunity, a court must determine (i) whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established right, and (ii) whether a reasonable, similarly situated defendant … When the existence of a constitutional right rests solely on the outcome of a balancing test, many courts have determined that the right generally is not clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Atkins v. Township of Flint

94 F. App'x 342 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 9, 2004

Atkins clearly established constitutional right not to be arrested without probable cause and not to be subjected to excessive force. … Atkins could maintain a § 1983 action based on a violation of his clearly established right to be free from an arrest without a probable cause.

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.

Reed v. Multi-Cty. Juvenile Sys.

2010 Ohio 6602 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2010

To overcome the appellants' qualified-immunity defense, Reed must establish that the appellants' conduct violated a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established. Hope v. … Leonard (C.A.8, 2007), 477 F.3d 544, where qualified immunity was denied via summary judgment.

Bosarge v. Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics

796 F.3d 435 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 15, 2015

To overcome the qualified immunity defense, Bosarge must plead that the agents violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. See Pearson v. … The agents are entitled to qualified immunity, and we need not decide their claim of absolute immunity under Rehberg.

Jeremy Graber v. Michael Boresky

59 F.4th 603 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 10, 2023

In cases implicating qualified immunity, similarly, whether “a particular complaint sufficiently alleges a clearly established violation of law cannot be decided in isolation from the facts pleaded.” … And qualified immunity analysis looks to precedent for law enshrining “clearly established” rights. Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148, 1152 (2018) (per curiam).

Hunt v. Massi

5 F. Supp. 3d 160 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 25, 2014

Overview of Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects public officials from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which … The Right was Clearly Established.

Anderson v. Recore

446 F.3d 324 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 4, 2006

II 33 "[P]ublic officials . . . are protected by qualified immunity from civil liability for actions taken in their official capacity, if those actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established rules then … Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Nicole Klum v. City of Davenport

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

Plaintiffs next argue the undisputed evidence establishes the district court erred by granting Officer Roth qualified immunity. … We conclude that any right was not clearly established at the time and therefore Officer Roth is entitled to qualified immunity.

Pollnow v. Glennon

757 F.2d 496 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 12, 1985

violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The district court in that case concluded that, although the right to such a hearing under the due process clause had not been clearly established at the time of the termination, the failure to follow established state regulations

Estate of Saylor v. Regal Cinemas, Inc.

54 F. Supp. 3d 409 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 16, 2014

Under Harlow , government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The entitlement to qualified immunity involves a two pronged inquiry: “first whether a constitutional violation occurred and second whether the right violated was clearly established.” Melgar v.

Spencer v. King County

39 Wash. App. 201 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 17, 1984

State officials are afforded a qualified immunity from liability under section 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … At a minimum, the constitutional rights asserted by Spencer were not "clearly established" at the time of the challenged conduct.

Bennett v. Coffman

178 W. Va. 500 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1987

I It has long been established that a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from an assessment of damages against him in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if he acted with a reasonable and good faith belief that … The appellees in this case are therefore immune from damages unless they acted contrary to clearly established law as it existed at the time they entered Mr.

Nicholas C. Omdahl, Roger C. Omdahl, and Linda Omdahl v. David E. Lindholm and Michael G. Stoffel

170 F.3d 730 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 15, 1999

It is also the key dispute as to whether the Omdahls established the existence of an alleged constitutional violation and, thus, whether they can successfully refute the qualified immunity defense. … The qualified immunity defense places the burden of establishing the existence of the alleged constitutional violation on the Omdahls. See Clash, 77 F.3d at 1047 .

Robert Wilkerson v. Richard Stalder

774 F.3d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 17, 2014

To be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Anderson v. … Adequacy of Process We hold that Woodfox has a clearly established liberty interest.

In re Roberts Litigation

97 F. Supp. 3d 1239 · District Court, D. Montana · Mar 19, 2015

“If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” Saucier v. … A two-part process for analyzing the application of qualified immunity is established in Saticier. The initial inquiry focuses on whether the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right. Id.

Roger Trent v. Steven Wade

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 9, 2015

The doctrine of qualified immunity “insulate[s]” state officials from liability to the extent that the officials’ actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” … ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”