Case law

Hagan v. Houston Independent School District

51 F.3d 48 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 27, 1995

We do not address whether the students have shown constitutional violations because even if they have, we conclude that under the standard established in Taylor, Orum is entitled to qualified immunity.2 1. … Therefore, Orum is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity on this issue as well.

Laurie v. Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

256 F.3d 1266 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 12, 2001

Moreover, the addition of a § 1983 claim undoubtedly would have brought into play issues involving qualified immunity as to the § 1983 claims against Judge Taylor and Mann in their individual capacities. … Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate how Mann's alleged concealment rises to the level of an equal protection violation or how Plaintiffs could overcome the defense of qualified immunity.

John Wayne Lumley, Plaintiff-Counter v. City of Dade City, Florida, a Municipal Corporation, Michael Wilkes, Lieutenant for the Dade City Police Department, in His Individual Capacity, Linda Leggett Register, Sergeant for Dade City Police Department, in Her Individual Capacity, Ray White, Detective for Dade City Police Department, in His Individual Capacity, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant. John Wayne Lumley v. City of Dade City, Florida, a Municipal Corporation, Pasco County, Florida, a Municipal Corporation, Lee Cannon, Sheriff for Pasco County, in His Individual and Official Capacity, Phillip Thompson, Chief of Police for Dade City Police Department, in His Individual and Official Capacity, Michael Wilkes, Lieutenant for the Dade City Police Department, in His Individual Capacity

327 F.3d 1186 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 10, 2003

The district court, on summary judgment, rejected the officers' defense of qualified immunity on the ground that their treatment of the plaintiff violated clearly established constitutional standards. 1 The officers now appeal … III. 15 Qualified immunity protects government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as their conduct does not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Smith, Horace E. v. City of Chicago

242 F.3d 737 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 6, 2001

The district court held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable person would not find that the officers violated Smith’s clearly established constitutional rights. … Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity for actions taken during a stop or arrest "’insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Kenneth Seymour v. City of Des Moines

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 25, 2008

Arnold and Danner were thus entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the detention order. … Moreover, “allegations of constitutional violations that require courts to balance competing interests may make it more difficult to find the law clearly established when assessing claims of qualified immunity.”

The Ecclesiastical Order Of The Ism Of Am, Inc. v. Joseph Chasin

845 F.2d 113 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 18, 1988

clearly established law and the information the official possessed. 483 U.S. at ----, 107 S.Ct. at 3040 , 97 L.Ed.2d at 532 . … standard of qualified immunity, the district court correctly found that none of the actions taken by the defendants violated any of the plaintiffs' clearly established constitutional or statutory rights.

Kuklane v. Whittington

37 F.3d 1494 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Oct 17, 1994

Whittington alleges that even if the arrest was unconstitutional, the jury erred in finding that he was not entitled to qualified immunity for the violation. 10 The test for qualified immunity for officers in a 42 U.S.C. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). 11 The steps involved in proving a qualified immunity defense are: (1) to identify the right violated, (2) to determine if the right was clearly established when violated, and (3) to

Green v. Montgomery

219 F.3d 52 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 24, 2000

A qualified immunity defense is established only if (1) the officers' actions did not violate clearly established law, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for the officers to believe that their actions did not violate such … immunity defense. 24 Nor, under the same circumstances, could the second basis for qualified immunity apply as a matter of law.

Peker v. Steglich

324 F. App'x 38 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 27, 2009

There is ambiguity in the New York case law regarding which acts by clerks are likely to be deemed “integral parts of the judicial function” and qualify a clerk for judicial immunity, Weiner, 273 A.D.2d at 97 -98 and which … acts by clerks are likely to be deemed “ministerial” in nature and fail to qualify a clerk for such immunity, Lapidus v.

Sheehy v. Town of Plymouth

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 10, 1999

Generally, government officials performing discretionary functions (such as arrests) are shielded from civil damages so long as their conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Nor are actual motives for conduct to be considered in evaluating a qualified immunity defense." Id. at 6.

Abre Jackson v. Marc Anastacio

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 25, 2025

Even if a trial were to establish that Jackson was deprived of a liberty interest, defendants would still be entitled to qualified immunity from any damages rem- edy because the applicable law was not clearly established at … Regardless, the qualified immunity inquiry is not close.

Hartman v. County of Nassau

350 F. App'x 477 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 1, 2009

“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 which … But the Supreme Court has “expressly rejected a requirement that previous cases be ‘fundamentally similar’ ” in order for the law to be clearly established. Hope v.

Summers v. Leis

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 21, 2004

This ruling was on qualified immunity involves a claim of right that is effectively a denial of qualified immunity. … was required to determine - prior to permitting further discovery - whether [Plaintiff’s] complaint alleged the violation of a constitutional right at all, and if so, whether that right was clearly established at the

Margheim v. Buljko

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 27, 2017

clearly established law.” … Having established that Mr. Margheim failed to make out a constitutional violation, we need not address the clearly established law inquiry of the qualified immunity analysis.

Lincoln v. Tuso

16 F. App'x 622 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 18, 2001

MEMORANDUM * Officials are protected from civil damages by qualified immunity if their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Nothing in this record suggests that the officers’ actions were contrary to clearly established law. Accordingly, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful detention claims.

Motley v. Parks

432 F.3d 1072 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 30, 2005

If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields the officer from further litigation. Id. … Qualified Immunity 59 Having determined that Motley's factual allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation, we turn our attention to evaluating whether the law was clearly established such that a reasonable

Mary B. Clark, Individually and as Survivor-At-Law of Ray Sharp, A/K/A Willie Clark and Shirley Clark, Administratrix of the Estate of Ray Sharp, Plaintiffs v. David C. Evans, Lanson Newsome and Robert Coleman, Mary B. Clark v. David C. Evans

840 F.2d 876 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 25, 1988

Since the law on this point was not clearly established at the time Sharp was shot, defendants Coleman and Newsome can properly claim a defense of qualified immunity as against the disabling force theory of liability. … Since there is no clearly-established law regarding whether an insane person can be shot during an escape attempt, defendants can appropriately raise a qualified immunity defense. 29 As for the theory that Sharp's action

Allen v. Hays

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 21, 2023

The individual defen- dants claim the benefit of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Van Den Bosch v. Raemisch

658 F.3d 778 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 15, 2011

The court found defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim because Van den Bosch failed to meet his burden of showing it was “clearly established” in 2007 that pro- hibiting distribution of … clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Martinez-Sanes v. Turnbull

318 F.3d 483 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 28, 2003

Qualified Immunity of the Governor The District Court granted injunctive relief only, and reserved for later disposition all damages issues. … To the extent that the District Court denied the Governor’s assertion of qualified immunity, the orders appealed from will be affirmed.