Case law

Crawford v. Davis

109 F.3d 1281 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 27, 1997

These defendants will merit qualified immunity unless their alleged conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights,” Harlow v. … Crawford’s clearly established statutory and constitutional rights under the circum *1285 stances. With respect to Ms.

Hughes v. Alabama Department of Public Safety

994 F. Supp. 1395 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Feb 23, 1998

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant engaged in conduct that violated “clearly established law.” Jordan v. Doe, 38 F.3d at 1559, 1565 (11th Cir.1994). … In addition, Hughes has failed to establish that the individual defendants would not be entitled to qualified immunity.

Betances v. Fischer

837 F.3d 162 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 16, 2016

violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … This panel is bound by Vincent’s rulings as to what was clearly established by Earley I.

Wright v. South Arkansas Regional Health Center, Inc.

800 F.2d 199 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 2, 1986

violation of clearly established law." … If properly supported, such an allegation could make out a violation of clearly established law and might defeat a motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity.

Hankins

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 1, 2026

However, unlike most affirmative defenses, plaintiff bears “the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial to overcome qualified immunity by showing a violation of clearly established federal law. … which (2) was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s conduct.”

ALIOTA v. MILLCREEK TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2024

If the complaint fails to state a claim of a violation of clearly established law on its face, “a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” … Here, the individual Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the “filing of a counterclaim for defamation did not violate Plaintiff's clearly established constitutional rights” (ECF No. 18,

Memorial Hermann Hospital System D/B/A Memorial Hermann Southwest Hospital v. Jewell Hayden

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Jun 17, 2014

Mar. 28, 2014) (“Generally, waiver presents a question of fact, but ‘when the facts and circumstances are admitted or clearly established, the question [of waiver] becomes one of law.’”) … To limit the rights that may be waived only to those where the law clearly establishes an ability to prevail is to demand too much.

Roska Ex Rel. Roska v. Peterson

304 F.3d 982 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 5, 2002

Whether the law was “clearly established.” … Amendment principle was “clearly established.”

Tennison v. City and County of San Francisco

570 F.3d 1078 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 23, 2009

The Inspectors moved for summary judgment on the basis of absolute and qualified immunity. … The Inspectors also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Kinney v. Weaver

367 F.3d 337 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 19, 2004

Yet, at the same time, an official does not lose qualified immunity merely because a certain right is clearly established in the abstract. … It is true that, even without judicial interpretation, violation of a statute can be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.

Merriman v. Walton

856 F.2d 1333 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 7, 1988

The court characterized the question in terms of probable cause and an assertion of qualified immunity. … (albeit fact-specific) question whether a reasonable officer could have believed [the plaintiff’s] warrantless [arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the searching officers possessed

Jemmott v. Coughlin

85 F.3d 61 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 23, 1996

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that officers performing discretionary functions are immune from liability for civil damages if their conduct either “did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable … Given this finding, and the fact that defendants are accused of violating what they reasonably should have known is a clearly established right, we decline to grant qualified immunity to the defendants.

Tuttle v. Sepolio

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 23, 2023

Several of the officers moved to dismiss, asserting qualified immunity. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement

Donahue v. City of Hazleton, PA

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2020

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials performing “discretionary functions,” are shielded from suit if their conduct did not violate a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right … immunity at this time since “[i]t was clearly established by [Baker v.

Patricia Littrell v. Daniel Jake Franklin

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 2, 2004

The second step of the qualified immunity analysis requires courts “to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … Specific findings on these questions of fact would have enabled the district court to address the legal issue of qualified immunity through reference to excessive force standards that are clearly established.

Turner v. City of North Charleston

675 F. Supp. 314 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Dec 14, 1987

If this right to protection was not then “clearly established,” these defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and, thus, to summary judgment. … If this right is not clearly established, good faith immunity may be invoked regardless of the language of the statute. See Jensen, 747 F.2d at 195, n. 12 . 3 .

Hayden v. Green

640 F.3d 150 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 5, 2011

that right was clearly established in light of the specific context of the case. … We reverse the district court’s order denying qualified immunity, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Knepper v. Genstar Corp.

537 So. 2d 619 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 20, 1988

Knepper, having worked in the explosives industry for over twenty-five years selling explosives and implementing their on-site use, had established a large clientele. … Where the circumstances and content of allegedly defamatory statements are clearly disputed by the parties, the jury should determine, under proper instructions from the court, whether or not the communication was privileged

Holzemer v. City of Memphis

621 F.3d 512 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 15, 2010

She further argues that if the conversation were protected petitioning, she would be entitled to qualified immunity because that right was not clearly established. … For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity.

Waterman v. Batton

393 F.3d 471 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 3, 2005

Thus, government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … established’ for qualified immunity purposes” and that “ ‘[c]learly established’ in this context includes not only already specifically adjudicated rights, but those manifestly included within more general applications of