Case law

Gunter v. Morrison

497 F.3d 868 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 15, 2007

The question is whether this right was clearly established. … This right was clearly established. See, e.g., Zar v. S.D.

Preast v. McGill

65 F. Supp. 2d 395 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 10, 1999

clearly established at the time of the incident, and (3) evaluate whether a reasonable [official] would have understood that the conduct at issue violated the clearly established right.” … Qualified immunity shields Deputy Gainer “from suits for damages if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed [Preast’s arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information” ’ Deputy Gainer possessed

Duncan v. Goedeke and Cleasey

837 F. Supp. 846 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 22, 1993

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, federal officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In order to overcome a defendant official's qualified immunity from Bivens suits, a plaintiff claiming violation of constitutional rights must first show that these rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct

Anthony Zimmerman v. Jeffrey Doran

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 24, 2015

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, officials are shielded from civil liability “‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established  statutory  or  constitutional  rights  of  which  a reasonable person  … We have held that “‘[c]onsulting a prosecutor may not give an officer absolute immunity from being sued for false arrest,  but  it  goes  far  to  establish  qualified  immunity.

Craddock v. Hicks

314 F. Supp. 2d 648 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Oct 23, 2003

However, the Supreme Court has established that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … If it does not, then the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

Riley

District Court, N.D. Georgia · Mar 4, 2026

So, to avoid qualified immunity, Plaintiff must present evidence that these Defendants violated his statutory or constitutional rights and that it was “clearly established at the time” that their conduct did … Turning to qualified immunity, the Eleventh Circuit—citing Hale and other cases—determined the sheriff violated clearly established law. Id. at 1034.

Avratin v. Bermudez

420 F. Supp. 2d 1121 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 5, 2006

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Clearly Established Right Having satisfied the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the Court must consider whether “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted

Gobert v. Caldwell

463 F.3d 339 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 29, 2006

Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 159 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Estelle). 14 “Once raised, a plaintiff has the burden to rebut the qualified immunity defense by establishing that the official's allegedly wrongful conduct … violated clearly established law.”

Komlosi v. The New York State Office Of Mental Retardation And Developmental Disabilities

64 F.3d 810 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 7, 1995

Qualified Immunity. 28 The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability if their conduct either " 'did not violate "clearly established rights" of which a reasonable person would have … known that their suspension of Komlosi without pay constituted a violation of a clearly established right.

Christopher Franklin v. Jeffrey Young

790 F.3d 865 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 25, 2015

“Summary judgment determinations are appealable when they resolve a dispute concerning an abstract issue of law relating to qualified immunity—typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly … established.”

Davis v. City of Las Vegas

478 F.3d 1048 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 28, 2007

to qualified immunity. … immunity if the right violated was not "clearly established."

Maes v. Folberg

504 F. Supp. 2d 339 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 27, 2007

Once a qualified immunity defense is raised, it is plaintiffs burden to establish that her constitutional right was clearly established. Boyd v. Owen, 481 F.3d 520, 527 (7th Cir.2007) (internal citations omitted). … by qualified immunity.

Billie M. Ireland v. Gary L. Tunis, Richard Thompson, John Meiers, and Richard D. Kuhn

113 F.3d 1435 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 1997

Accordingly, because Meiers’s actions in swearing to the complaint were objectively reasonable and violated no clearly established law, we hold that Meiers is entitled to qualified immunity under the Malley formulation. … immunity because his involvement was objectively reasonable and violated no clearly established law.

Sweaney v. Ada County

119 F.3d 1385 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 15, 1997

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … We held that the social workers’ conduct was shielded by qualified immunity. Id. at 334 .

Mahon v. City of Largo, Fla.

829 F. Supp. 377 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 26, 1993

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY “A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability when the acts complained of violate no clearly established law of which the reasonable … The burden to establish the affirmative defense of qualified immunity rests with the defendant claiming immunity.

Casondra Pollreis v. Lamont Marzolf

66 F.4th 726 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 27, 2023

“Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability unless his conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Burns v. … “To defeat qualified immunity, Pollreis must prove that: ‘(1) the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, demonstrate the deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) the right was clearly

Clark v. Bridges

211 F. Supp. 3d 731 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Sep 30, 2016

As the Magistrate Judge deftly explains, qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damage suits as long as the conduct in question does not “violate clearly established … In determining whether qualified immunity applies here/the Court must determine: (1) whether Plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right; and, (2) whether that right was clearly established at

Simmons v. Skelonc

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 29, 2021

conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … Because Plaintiff has failed to “allege sufficient facts to establish that [Officer Skelonc] is not entitled to qualified immunity,” Patterson, 999 F.

Pray v. City of Sandusky

49 F.3d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 21, 1995

In other words, qualified immunity is appropriate either on the basis that the right allegedly violated was not at the time "clearly established," or if "clearly established," was one that a "reasonable" person in the defendant's … violate clearly established rights."

Grignano v. City of Milford

106 Conn. App. 648 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Apr 1, 2008

Because the parties in the present matter assume that the immunity provided by § 52-557n (a) (2) (B) is identical to a municipal employee’s qualified immunity for discretionary acts at common law, we also assume, without … Under the common law, “a municipal employee is liable for the misperformance of ministerial acts, but has a qualified immunity in the performance of governmental acts. . . .