Case law

Henry Clash v. Michael Beatty

77 F.3d 1045 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 12, 1996

Beatty moved for summary judgment on the ground that he enjoys a qualified immunity from liability, because, even if he did what Clash described, those actions would not have violated any clearly established Fourth Amendment … When a defendant officer raises the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing the existence of the allegedly clearly established constitutional right. Rice v.

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

Driever v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 19, 2020

Qualified immunity protects officials from suits unless their actions are (1) plainly incompetent, or (2) committed with knowledge of violation of clearly established law. See Malley v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 227 (2009) (finding that officials were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that their conduct was unconstitutional).

James P. Kyricopoulos v. Town of Orleans

967 F.2d 14 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 18, 1992

immunity shielded the police officer who arrested appellant from liability for damages; and (3) absolute immunity protected this officer from liability for testimony given at the grand jury and at trial. … Because the district court clearly was correct in finding the police officer absolutely immune for testimony given at trial, see Briscoe v.

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

Lewis v. Harrison School District No. 1

805 F.2d 310 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 13, 1986

Qualified Immunity The district court found that the individual board members and school officials could not be held liable under Harlow v. … Under Harlow and Mitchell the test for invoking qualified immunity is whether a defendant governmental official’s conduct violated “clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would

Burns v. County of Cambria

971 F.2d 1015 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 28, 1992

Finally, in considering the qualified immunity defense of the two Roberts defendants, the court held that they were not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. Id. II. Appellate Jurisdiction A. … Clearly Established Standard Roberts argues, however, that it was not clearly established at the time of these dismissals that deputy sheriffs, as distinguished from other public officials, were indeed protected under the

Sherry Wilkerson v. City of Akron, Ohio

906 F.3d 477 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 15, 2018

Qualified immunity shields officers from liability so long as they do not violate clearly established rights that a reasonable officer in their shoes would have recognized. Harlow v. … Danzy did not violate Thomas’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.

Palmer v. Sanderson

9 F.3d 1433 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 23, 1993

Qualified Immunity 11 Law enforcement officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) the "right" they allegedly violated was not "clearly established" at the time of the violation, or (2) if a reasonable … Sanderson and Morrisette argue that the district court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity because (1) the Fourth Amendment's protection against excessive force was not clearly established

Robert Walker v. Robert McClellan Superintendent, Thomas A. Coughlin, Iii, L. Bates, Hearing Officer

126 F.3d 127 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 9, 1997

Alternatively, the district court noted that dismissal was mandated on account of Bates’s right to qualified immunity because Walker had no clearly established right to call witnesses in his defense at the disciplinary hearing … Qualified immunity protects prison officials from personal liability under § 1983 when their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

David Lee v. City of Portsmouth

2002 DNH 064 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 19, 2002

"Clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right." … The next step is to ask whether the right to be free from excessive force under the facts alleged was clearly established.

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.’”

Walker v. Johnson

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 18, 2020

“Under the second prong, a government official is entitled to qualified immunity if the right at issue was not “clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 735. … cannot be considered in deciding whether particular conduct violated clearly established law for purposes of adjudging entitlement to qualified immunity”).

Pierson v. Itawamba County, Mississippi

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jun 3, 2020

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

Jane ANDRE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the BENDIX CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee

841 F.2d 172 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 2, 1988

To meet her burden of establishing a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge, Andre must therefore show both that she was qualified for and satisfactorily performing the duties of her job. Lee v. … The district court held that Andre met her initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment because she proved that she was a member of a protected class, she was qualified for her position and

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.

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.

McKnight v. Kingsboro

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 2024

At this stage of the litigation, these averments are sufficient to establish that Defendants Ferrari and Heine violated clearly established law for the purposes of qualified immunity. See Dayoub v. … Additionally, the “clearly established” test relates only to a qualified immunity, not a sovereign immunity, analysis. Brautigam, 684 F.

Jack E. Turner v. E. T. Raynes and Bill Edd Jones

611 F.2d 92 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 31, 1980

Sheriff Jones’ Qualified Immunity The court below entered summary judgment for Sheriff Jones grounded in his qualified official immunity. This must be upheld. … Searching for clues to the Court’s position, however, we cannot ignore another possible reading of footnote 7: that only a clearly inordinate exercise of unconferred jurisdiction by a judge — one so crass as to establish

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.