Case law

Matthew Milstead, Administrator of the Estate of Mark Milstead v. Chad Kibler Scott Proctor Lester Whetzel

243 F.3d 157 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 5, 2001

The legal principles governing qualified immunity analysis are well established. … “Police officers are protected by qualified immunity when performing their duties within the scope of their employment insofar as their conduct does not breach ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Farris v. Maury County Jail

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Apr 4, 2025

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time. … Evans, 90 F.4th 541, 548 (6th Cir. 2024) (the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff’s cursory briefing makes no attempt to meet his burden of showing that the defendant violated his clearly

Soto v. Trejo

District Court, D. New Mexico · May 29, 2024

In their Motion, Defendants argue that Defendant Johnson is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff has not alleged that she violated any clearly established law or acted with requisite intent to state a § 1983 … Defendants point out that, under Plaintiff’s view of what constitutes a violation of “clearly established” law, any violation of an administrative rule would suffice to deny qualified immunity to a state official.

Dufort v. City of New York

874 F.3d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 27, 2017

Qualified Immunity In the alternative, the Defendants argue that even if Dufort has established the requisite elements of his false arrest and malicious prosecution claims, they are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity … Qualified immunity establishes a defense for a government actor acting in his official capacity. Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 , 106 S.Ct. 1092 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986).

Yerdon v. Poitras

120 F.4th 1150 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 5, 2024

And it is well-established that Congress has not validly abrogated the states’ sovereign immunity for claims arising under Title I. See Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 360 (2001). … Because Congress has clearly expressed its intention to abrogate state sovereign immunity for all claims under the ADA, see 42 U.S.C.

Brown v. Callahan

623 F.3d 249 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 7, 2010

The qualified immunity defense has two prongs: whether an official’s conduct violated a constitutional right of the plaintiff; and whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Manis v. … To be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. Brown v.

S.G., as Guardian Ad Litem of A.G. A Minor and Individually v. Sayreville Board of Education Georgia B. Baumann William L. Bauer

333 F.3d 417 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 19, 2003

In any event, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law to the contrary. … speech, procedural due process or equal protection, 3 and because there is no clearly established law to the contrary, we will affirm the District Court’s grant of qualified immunity. 4 IV.

BUSH v. RENEGAR

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2020

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity has long “protect[ed] government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity.”

Albero v. Worcester County Board of Commissioners

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 11, 2025

Elliott, 25 F.4th 227, 235 (4th Cir. 2022) (explaining that qualified immunity applies when either (1) a plaintiff fails to state a violation of a federal right or (2) a defendant shows the right was not clearly established … Having determined that Plaintiffs fail to state a violation of Arthur’s federal rights, there is no need for the Court to address, for qualified-immunity purposes, whether any such right was “clearly established” at the

Osier v. Burlington Telecom

Vermont Superior Court · Oct 20, 2010

“‘Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’” … Phrased another way, the question of “clearly established law” in this case is as follows: (1) was it clearly established law that a government official must comply with a regulatory entity’s order such as the Certificate

Javier Vanegas v. City of Pasadena

46 F.4th 1159 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 31, 2022

CITY OF PASADENA qualified immunity analysis—whether the unlawfulness of the officers’ conduct was not “clearly established.” … And even if no probable cause existed under state law, they contend they are still entitled to qualified immunity given there was no violation of clearly established law.

Walker v. City of Orem

451 F.3d 1139 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 27, 2006

Plaintiffs version of the facts therefore shows the violation of a clearly-established constitutional right. We must therefore affirm the district court’s order denying qualified immunity to Officer Peterson. … That right is also clearly established. We must therefore affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Officer Clayton.

Dwain Smith v. Conway County, Arkansas

759 F.3d 853 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 16, 2014

“The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at ___, 134 S. Ct. at 1866 (quoting Hope v. … The district court denied Zulpo qualified immunity.

Linda K. Wood v. Steven C. Ostrander Neil Maloney

851 F.2d 1212 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 13, 1988

Qualified immunity State officials cannot be held liable for damages under § 1983 unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right. Davis v. … away clearly established law.

Sharon Ann Belcher, as Administratrix of the Estate of Rocky L. Belcher, Deceased v. The City of Foley, Alabama, James Anderson Officer Jimmy Roberson Charles McKinley Dwain Riebeling, Sharon Ann Belcher, as Administratrix of the Estate of Rocky L. Belcher, Deceased v. The City of Foley, Alabama James Anderson Officer Jimmy Roberson Charles McKinley Dwain Riebeling

30 F.3d 1390 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 2, 1994

Thus, to overcome the defendants' qualified immunity, Mrs. … Belcher's death no decision had clearly established that Chief Anderson's actions or inactions constituted deliberate indifference, he is entitled to qualified immunity. 40 2.

Millet v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 13, 2025

Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 62–63 (2018) (“[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established … As noted, “officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

Allstate Insurance v. Elwell

513 A.2d 269 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 23, 1986

A contract is against public policy if it “clearly appears to be in violation of some well established rule of law, or that its tendency will be harmful to the interests of society.” Lesieur v. … MacDonald, 412 A.2d 71 (Me.1980), and parent-child immunity, Black v.

Technical Ordnance, Inc. v. United States

244 F.3d 641 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 26, 2001

Moreover, since Moore's conduct took place prior to the 1994 decision in Albright, it could not have violated any clearly established constitutional right. Moore is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. … established constitutional right and that as a matter of law he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Cindy L. Cameron and Lawrence M. Cameron v. James McCauley Seitz, Monroe County Probate Court

38 F.3d 264 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 21, 1994

Seitz is entitled to qualified immunity in the performance of official discretionary functions to the extent that his conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Flatford v. … The fact that the contours of such protection simply have not been clearly extended to engagements compels the con *276 elusion that qualified immunity is mandated here. 5 Because there were no clearly established constitutional

Parker v. St. Stephen's Urban Dev.

243 N.J. Super. 317 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 24, 1990

That total figure is *321 prorated among the apartments to establish the "basic rent" for each unit. … Defendant clearly falls outside the scope of this definition. No benefactor whose charitable contributions require protection exists in this case.