Case law

Purcell Ex Rel. Estate of Morgan v. Toombs County, GA

400 F.3d 1313 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 24, 2005

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials [] and from liability if their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … , we need not address the element of preexisting clearly established law.

William Bell-Bey v. Beverly Williams

87 F.3d 832 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 1996

The Donta court held, “If the law which the defendant is alleged to have violated is clearly established, then the qualified immunity defense should fail and discovery should proceed. … If the law is not clearly established, the defendant is immune.” Id. (citation omitted).

Brian Thomas Hoyland v. Shawn McMenomy

869 F.3d 644 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 28, 2017

established law.” … ... right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Mobley v. Palm Beach County Sheriff Department

783 F.3d 1347 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 15, 2015

Gwinnett County, 967 F.2d 1495 (11th Cir. 1992), a qualified immunity excessive force case. … We read Moore to be articulating the law that was clearly established at the time of the pre-Graham arrest.

Holeman v. City of New London

425 F.3d 184 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 30, 2005

Our review at this juncture is limited, however, to "circumstances where the qualified immunity defense may be established as a matter of law." Cartier v. Lussier, 955 F.2d 841, 844 (2d Cir.1992). … III 11 Qualified immunity "shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively reasonable

Durkee v. Minor

841 F.3d 872 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 14, 2016

For now, suffice to say Defendants’ claim to qualified immunity imposes the burden on Plaintiff to show Defendants violated a constitutional right that was clearly established under the facts of this case at the time of … While the district court’s factual findings are sufficient at this stage to overcome Defendant Hochmuth’s qualified immunity defense, we cannot say the 2 To complete our qualified immunity analysis as to

Sarah Lee v. Ohio Educ. Ass'n

951 F.3d 386 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 24, 2020

Ultimately, the Wyatt Court held that private parties were not entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 164–67. … Therefore, given that the question presented was limited to the applicability of qualified immunity, the Court declared that it could offer “no relief” to the private party defendants. Id.

Rogelio Flores-Abarca v. William Barr, U. S. Atty

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 16, 2019

See Valerio-Ochoa, 241 F.3d at 1095–96 (explaining that a conviction for “willfully discharg[ing] a firearm” clearly “qualifies as ‘using’ a firearm under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C)”); Kuhali, 266 F.3d at 105 (finding that … Oklahoma’s criminal prohibition against transporting loaded firearms in vehicles clearly extends to firearms possessed by passengers.

Jennifer Morgan-Tyra v. Andrei Nikolov

89 F.4th 1082 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 8, 2024

In a case involving a qualified-immunity defense, summary judgment is appropriate if: (1) the plaintiff-friendly version of the facts fails to establish a constitutional violation; or (2) the law at the time did not clearly … At most, his actions fall within the “hazy border between excessive and acceptable force,” which gives him the benefit of qualified immunity. Mullenix v.

Thomas Louden v. City of Minneapolis, Minnesota Brenda Perry, Individually and as an Employee of the City of Minneapolis

233 F.3d 1109 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 28, 2000

Counsel has not cited any case in support of this theory, and the appellees argue that Perry is protected by qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established as to when immediate access to medical equipment … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Carter v. Dupuy

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 20, 2026

Dupuy and Sheriff Ard moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. The district court denied their motion. … To overcome qualified immunity, Carter must show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Reams v. Irvin

561 F.3d 1258 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 9, 2009

She asserts that because she demonstrated that GDA officials violated her clearly established due process rights, the district court erred in concluding that they were entitled to qualified immunity. … Inasmuch as Reams failed to establish a constitutional violation, appel-lees were entitled to qualified immunity.

Hare v. City of Corinth, Ms.

36 F.3d 412 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 8, 1994

summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. 13 A. … Clearly Established Constitutional Injury 14 In reviewing the denial of a summary judgment motion based on a claim of qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has taught that the first inquiry is whether the plaintiff has asserted

Workman v. Jordan

32 F.3d 475 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 11, 1994

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 13 Qualified immunity protects public officials from individual liability in a Sec. 1983 action unless the officials violated "clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … a clearly established federal right.

William Geoffery Dobbins v. J.C. Giles

451 F. App'x 849 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 9, 2012

right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … the two prongs required to defeat a defense of qualified immunity.

Mirek Magdziak, Administrator of the Estate of Tadeusz Glodek, Deceased v. David Byrd

96 F.3d 1045 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 27, 1996

Qualified Immunity The defense of qualified immunity protects government agents ‘“from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Once a defendant has raised the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the right he or she is asserting was clearly established at the relevant time.

Wilbert Glover v. Matt Bostrom

31 F.4th 601 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 12, 2022

The district court 1 granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … 2) whether the right was clearly established at the time.

Ricci v. Key Bancshares of Maine, Inc.

768 F.2d 456 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 24, 1985

Under Harlow , qualified immunity is available only where the official’s conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 457 U.S. at 818 . … We must hold, however, that, based upon our review of nationwide precedent, such a cause of action is not clearly enough established to warrant finding that the FBI agents have lost their qualified immunity.

Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany

187 F.3d 452 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 1999

not violate any clearly established constitutional guarantees; (4) the Sheriff defendants were entitled to discretionary function immunity under La. … Orders denying qualified immunity are based on an issue of law when: (1) they decide whether the legal right allegedly violated by the official was clearly established at the time of the challenged action; or (2) in cases

Canter v. County of Otsego

14 F. App'x 518 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 12, 2001

As the magistrate judge pointed out in his discussion of qualified immunity, the State Police defendants expressly admitted that the constitutional rights they are accused of violating were clearly established at the time … immunity[,] typically, the issue of whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established.