Case law

Lawson v. Abrams

863 F.2d 260 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 20, 1988

that decision, noted that prosecutors may assert only qualified immunity, not absolute immunity, for their administrative or investigative tasks not intimately associated with the judicial process. … have absolute immunity for some of their acts but only qualified immunity for others.

55 Fair empl.prac.cas. 338, 51 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 39,294 William D. Crutcher, Marion L. Madry v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Appeal of H. David Owens

883 F.2d 502 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 30, 1989

whether Owens violated clearly established constitutional rights, and *504 whether Madry sustained her burden of producing direct evidence of racially-based animus. … In remanding this issue, we note a confusion that has arisen at oral argument on this qualified immunity appeal.

Marietta Robinson v. Sarah Pezzat

818 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 1, 2016

Seeking to avoid this result, the District urges us to affirm on an alternative ground, i.e., that Pezzat is entitled to qualified immunity because she violated no clearly established law. … In the district court, the District of Columbia argued only that Robinson suffered no constitutional injury; it never argued that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on clearly established law grounds.

Martin v. Heideman

106 F.3d 1308 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 14, 1997

Because most legal rights are “clearly established” at some level of generality, immunity would be impossible to obtain if a plaintiff were required only to cite an abstract legal principle that an official had “clearly” … Auger, 842 F.Supp. 25 (D.Me.1994)(cries of pain caused by too-tight cuffs; qualified immunity denied).

Russell v. Wayne County School District

District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Aug 16, 2019

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 (1987) (reciting that qualified immunity turns on the “legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time [the official action] was taken”). … Town of Ball, 827 F.3d 515, 529 (5th Cir. 2016) (permitting Monell claim to proceed to trial despite grant of qualified immunity based on the ‘clearly established’ prong).

Sharrar v. Felsing

128 F.3d 810 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 24, 1997

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY A. … To prevail on their qualified immunity claim,--a claim not reached by the district court--defendants must show that their conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would

McIntosh Ex Rel. Estate of McIntosh v. Smith

690 F. Supp. 2d 515 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 2, 2010

Qualified Immunity “[government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages [by qualified immunity] insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … and the then clearly established law.

Stanley R. Palowsky, III, Individually, and on Behalf of Alternative Environmental Solutions, Inc. v. Allyson Campbell

Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jun 26, 2019

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815-19, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2736-39, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (allegations of malice are insufficient to overcome qualified immunity). … Conduct, clearly recognizes the dichotomy between adjudicative and administrative duties.

Chandler v. Secretary of the Florida Department of Transportation

695 F.3d 1194 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 19, 2012

Consequently, qualified immunity is denied. We review de novo the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds. See Long v. Slaton, 508 F.3d 576, 579 (11th Cir.2007). II. … violation of a clearly established law.

Mallett Jr. v. Goines

District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 22, 2021

This second prong of the qualified immunity analysis involves “two separate inquiries: whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident; and, if so, whether the conduct … City of Arlington, Texas, 16 F.4th 1159 (Sth Cir. 2021) (affirming the dismissal of claims based on qualified immunity when “the plaintiffs failed to identify any clearly established law that would place beyond doubt the

Erika Mabes v. Angela McFeeley

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 28, 2025

Both sets of defendants invoked qual- ified immunity, contending that their actions did not violate the Mabeses’ clearly established rights. … Thompson’s en- titlement to qualified immunity naturally follows from the Mabeses’ failure to carry their “burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right.” Forman v.

David C. Skrtich v. Timothy Alvin Thornton

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 29, 2002

established law” of excessive force on its head and changes the purpose of qualified immunity in excessive force cases from one of protection for the legitimate use of force into a shield for clearly illegal conduct. … Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 615 (1999) (“‘clearly established’” for purposes of qualified immunity does not mean that “‘an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been

Orozco v. County of Yolo

814 F. Supp. 885 · District Court, E.D. California · Feb 24, 1993

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct did not violate plaintiffs’ clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or if the officers could reasonably have believed that their conduct was lawful … Alternatively, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if they prove that a reasonable officer possessing the same information could have believed that the conduct at issue was reasonable in light of the clearly established

Juan Shelton v. Brian Stevens

964 F.3d 747 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 9, 2020

The district court ruled that all officers except Stevens were entitled to qualified immunity. … Even so, to defeat Stevens’s defense of qualified immunity, Shelton must demonstrate that his right to be free from this particular use of force was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Hawkins v. Steingut

829 F.2d 317 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 18, 1987

We hold that defendants did not violate any of Hawkins’ clearly-established federal rights by failing to reappoint him, and therefore the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … The court found that the individual Board members were not entitled to qualified immunity from suit, apparently on the theory that Hawkins had a clearly-established first amendment right not to be terminated from his job

Smith v. Siegelman

322 F.3d 1290 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 28, 2003

The qualified immunity defense may be raised and addressed on a motion to dismiss, and will be granted if the complaint “fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Chesser v. … 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 have

Porter v. Epps

659 F.3d 440 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 28, 2011

in light of clearly established law at the time of the violation. … We further noted that “the subjective deliberate indifference standard serves only to demonstrate the clearly established law in effect at the time of the incident.” Id. Here, we are concerned with qualified immunity.

Nichols v. Lewis Grocer

138 F.3d 563 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 3, 1998

Louisiana Office of Community Services, 47 F.3d 1438, 1444 (5th Cir. 1995) (“A factfinder can infer pretext if it finds that the employee was ‘clearly better qualified’ (as opposed to merely better or as qualified) than … Assuming arguendo that Nichols was indeed prepared to handle the rigors of the night perishables supervisor position, her listed “qualifications” nevertheless do not establish her to be ‘clearly better qualified’ for it

People of Guam v. ELIGIO ADRIATICO

Supreme Court of Guam · Dec 13, 2024

Md. 1976) (applying Kastigar, stating, “The legislative history of this statute clearly reveals a congressional intent that a ‘statutory (claim of immunity) . . . be as broad as, but no broader than, the privilege against … [58] Here, the established principles of federal law dictate a result—the alleged unconstitutional action does not fall below a federal floor.

Aldaba v. Marshall County

844 F.3d 870 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 20, 2016

Having further considered our earlier opinion, we now hold that the three law- enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law. … Addressing only the clearly-established-law prong of the qualified-immunity analysis, the Supreme Court reversed. Id.