Case law

Bikachi Amisi v. Lakeyta Brooks

93 F.4th 659 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 22, 2024

“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry v. … of qualified immunity.

McIntosh v. Weinberger

810 F.2d 1411 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 14, 1987

The District Court expressly declined to reach the question whether Turner violated clearly established law; instead, citing Harlow’s “discretionary function” language, the District Court rejected the qualified-immunity defense … the objective test of immunity, which focuses not upon whether the official was exercising discretion, but upon whether he violated clearly established law.

John Sabo v. Megan Erickson

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 31, 2025

Qualified Immunity and Clearly Established Law A constitutional or statutory right is “clearly established” when the law is “‘sufficiently clear’ that every ‘reasonable of- ficial would understand that what he is doing’ is … For a discussion about the future of qualified immunity, see id. at 560–68.

Torcasio v. Murray

57 F.3d 1340 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 29, 1995

--was clearly established. … "In analyzing a claim of qualified immunity it is ... necessary first to identify the specific ... right allegedly violated, then to inquire whether at the time of the alleged violation it was clearly established, then further

Halcomb v. Wmata

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 2011

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Mr. Woods argues that he “has qualified immunity both for the arrest [of Ms. Halcomb] itself and for the limited amount of force necessary to effectuate the arrest.” Mot. at 7. … were clearly established at the time the action was taken” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

Cory Driscoll v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 23, 2026

I thus would grant Smiley qualified immunity because our precedent did not clearly establish that she violated the Fourth Amendment at the time she acted. I respectfully dissent. … If unpublished decisions cannot clearly establish the law for qualified-immunity purposes, I doubt that abrogated decisions may do so. Cf. Campbell v. Riahi, 109 F.4th 854, 861 (6th Cir. 2024).

Collier v. Clayton County Community Service Board

236 F. Supp. 2d 1345 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 30, 2002

immunity. … Therefore, all individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim. 29 III.

Jeff Courtright v. City of Battle Creek

839 F.3d 513 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 14, 2016

Page 4 “When a defendant appeals the denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, we review de novo whether the complaint alleges violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” … established right for purposes of qualified immunity.”

Sova v. City of Mt. Pleasant

142 F.3d 898 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 24, 1998

LaLone and Officer Shell are entitled to qualified immunity. Police officers are afforded qualified immunity for their discretionary functions, Pierson v. … “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

See v. City of Elyria

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 19, 2007

facts are as asserted by the defendant, the defendant’s actions violated clearly established law and are therefore not within the scope of the qualified immunity. … Page 5 legal question of qualified immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law.’” Farm Labor Org. Comm. v.

Ludwig v. Anderson

54 F.3d 465 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 1, 1995

Under the doctrine, of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary tasks are shielded from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … This is not to say that Ludwig’s status as an emotionally disturbed person entitles him to any additional, clearly established constitutional rights which would be relevant to the qualified immunity determination.

Estate of Tori Carter Brenda Chambers v. City of Detroit, Donald Hollins, Lieutenant

408 F.3d 305 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 27, 2005

Finally, to complete the qualified immunity analysis, this right was clearly established at the time of Hollins’s violation. … The right that Hollins violated was therefore clearly established. Under the facts alleged by the Estate, Hollins is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Riley v. Newton

94 F.3d 632 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 11, 1996

"For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all … ("For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must [be] concrete and factually defined....") (quoting Anderson v.

In the Interest of J.L.W.

523 N.W.2d 622 · Court of Appeals of Iowa · Aug 25, 1994

Clearly, actions speak louder than words. Intent can be shown through conduct. Michael has established a record of complete disregard for J.L.W.’s welfare: no visits, no financial support, no cards, letters, or gifts. … We also determine this is established by clear and convincing evidence.

John Sabo v. Megan Erickson

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 31, 2025

Qualified Immunity and Clearly Established Law A constitutional or statutory right is “clearly established” when the law is “‘sufficiently clear’ that every ‘reasonable of- ficial would understand that what he is doing’ is … For a discussion about the future of qualified immunity, see id. at 560–68.

DeStafney v. University of Alabama

413 So. 2d 391 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Feb 5, 1982

We must recognize at the outset that our cases have interpreted § 14 as affording absolute immunity to some State officials, as well as to the State itself, and extending a qualified immunity to others. … Clearly, under the guidelines of Gill and Milton , a claim for personal injury based upon the alleged negligent conduct of a State employee, even when committed in the line and scope of employment, is not within the ambit

Gary Wall v. James Wade

741 F.3d 492 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 3, 2014

We also hold that their alleged actions violated the plaintiff’s clearly established rights, and that they are therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. 9 The plaintiff’s claims for equitable relief … We conclude that, given Wall’s circumstances, his right to participate in Ramadan was clearly established, and the defendants are therefore not entitled to qualified immunity.

Carroll v. Carman

25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 5 · Supreme Court of the United States · Nov 10, 2014

The court also held that Carroll was not entitled to qualified immunity because his actions violated clearly established law. Ibid. … A government official sued under §1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

Perry v. Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Mar 14, 2025

Thomas, 843 F.3d 172, 177 (Sth Cir. 2016) (“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.”) (quoting Mace v. … Qualified immunity calls for a bifurcated test in which the court must first determine (1) “whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established

Robert Turner v. Al Thomas, Jr.

930 F.3d 640 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 19, 2019

Qualified immunity shields state actors from liability under § 1983 liability when their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Accordingly, Turner has not alleged a violation of clearly established law, and Thomas and Flaherty are entitled to qualified immunity. 2 IV.