Case law

Gene Autrey Adams v. Paul Metiva

31 F.3d 375 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 1, 1994

The key inquiry in analyzing a claim of qualified immunity is whether the defendant’s alleged conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … First, the allegations must state a claim of the violation of clearly established law.

Roland Edger v. Krista McCabe

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 20, 2023

Hollowell, 59 F.3d 1203, 1206 (11th Cir. 1995) (explaining that the qualified immunity inquiry under “clearly established law” is whether there was “arguable probable cause”). … Where we part ways with the district court is on the issue of arguable probable cause or the “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Hall v. Tollett

128 F.3d 418 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 22, 1997

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Whether the government official "is protected by qualified immunity turns on 'the objective legal reasonableness' of the action, assessed in the light of the legal rules that were 'clearly established' at the time the action

Knowlton Merritt v. John E. MacKey

827 F.2d 1368 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 16, 1987

Vincent and Mackey are not entitled to qualified immunity protection because their conduct exceeded the scope of their authority and because they violated Merritt’s clearly established constitutional rights. … When the law is clearly established, as here, the qualified immunity defense fails “since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.”

Louis Gradisher v. City of Akron

794 F.3d 574 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 24, 2015

Whether a right has been clearly established should not be determined at “a high level of generality.” Id. at 2084. … City of Broadview Heights, 712 F.3d 951, 963 (6th Cir. 2013) (“Qualified immunity does not protect the officers here.

Oliver v. Fiorino

586 F.3d 898 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 26, 2009

Under this test, “the law is clearly established, and qualified immunity can be overcome, only if the standards set forth in Graham and our own case law inevitably lead every reasonable officer in [the defendant's] position … When measured against these facts, the officers violated a clearly established right. The district court properly rejected qualified immunity for Officers Burk and Fiorino. Accordingly, we affirm.

Sylvester v. Sacramento County Sheriff

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 19, 2025

Rowlands, 606 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2010) (defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if his “‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Our rejection of qualified immunity on the pleadings does not preclude individual Defendants from asserting qualified immunity later, “[o]nce an evidentiary record has been developed through discovery.” O’Brien v.

Heartland Academy Community Church v. Waddle

595 F.3d 798 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 8, 2010

Qualified Immunity: General Principles “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Qualified immunity is not only a defense to liability but also an immunity from suit.

Cosenza v. City of Worcester

355 F. Supp. 3d 81 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 2, 2019

Qualified Immunity Defendants similarly argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiff's malicious prosecution claims. … Defendants argue that the caselaw demonstrates Plaintiff's right was not clearly established and they are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Godin v. Corrections Corp. of America

Vermont Superior Court · Aug 25, 2017

We have recognized two degrees of official immunity: absolute immunity and qualified immunity. … White, 155 Vt. 621, 626–27 (1991) (“The desire in Levinsky to promote summary judgment resolution of qualified immunity claims is consistent with the perception that qualified immunity is indeed an immunity from the suit

Siebert v. Severino

97 F. Supp. 2d 882 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · May 24, 2000

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (even if the law is clearly established, an official is entitled to qualified immunity if he neither knew or should have known of the relevant legal … prevail on her due process claim because Severino violated clearly established constitutional law.

Estate of Charles Chivrell v. City of Arcata

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 6, 2024

To determine if an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the 10 Court considers whether (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right 11 was clearly established at the time of the … See Perez, 98 F.4th at 928 (contravention of training would not 26 defeat qualified immunity because “the law did not clearly establish, nor did

William Evans v. Harry Vinson

427 F. App'x 437 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 29, 2011

Qualified Immunity Although the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to Evans establishes that Defendants violated Evans’s First and Fourth Amendment rights, Defendants may still be entitled to qualified … immunity if the constitutional rights at issue were not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Weaver v. Clarke

45 F.3d 1253 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 30, 1995

The parties’ briefs focus on the second step of our qualified immunity analysis— whether the right allegedly violated was “clearly established.” … CONCLUSION Because Weaver has alleged the violation of a clearly-established constitutional right, the defendant prison officials are not entitled to dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity.

Locantore v. Hunt

775 F. Supp. 2d 680 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2011

require a conclusion that it was ‘clearly established’ in the qualified immunity context.” … Because it was not clearly established for qualified immunity purposes that to impose PRS administratively was unlawful prior to Earley , it must follow that it was also not clearly established that it was unlawful to do

Lewis v. Hat Corporation of America

150 A.2d 750 · Court of Chancery of Delaware · May 1, 1959

It is clearly established in Delaware that stockholder ratification of corporate action which is not per se void renders such action immune from minority stockholder attack, Fidanque v. … The proxy statement setting forth the matters to be acted on at the August 29 special meeting of stockholders clearly described the specific matter before the meeting to be approval of the agreement to purchase Champ Hats

Mudge v. Zugalla, Harder

939 F.3d 72 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 12, 2019

had violated clearly established law. … ʺThe issues on qualified immunity are: (1) whether plaintiff has shown facts making out [a] violation of a constitutional right; (2) if so, whether that right was clearly established; and (3) even if the right was clearly

Hicks v. Feeney

770 F.2d 375 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 26, 1985

Fauver, 544 F.Supp. 584, 607 (D.N.J.1982) (although legal principles clearly established, qualified immunity granted because specific question not yet resolved). … Thus, Feeney’s entitlement to qualified immunity hinges on whether it was clearly established that Hicks’s confinement after the initial 72-hour period violated his constitutional rights.

Porter v. Jameson

889 F. Supp. 1484 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 12, 1995

“clearly established”). … Simply put, Officer Jameson is entitled to qualified immunity if the Porters fail to produce sufficient evidence that, when viewed in the light most favorable to them, Jameson violated their clearly established Fourteenth

Henry Lyons v. F. Wayne Vaught

875 F.3d 1168 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 22, 2017

Defendants moved to dismiss the SAC, arguing they are entitled to qualified immunity because at the time of the alleged retaliation, “it was not clearly established that a teacher complaining about academic favoritism towards … “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. Pauly, 137 S.