Case law

Gonzales v. Duran

590 F.3d 855 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 22, 2009

Second, the judge could define the clearly established law for the jury. … Second, in deciding whether a right is clearly established, an essential part of the qualified immunity inquiry, a court must assess whether the right was clearly established agaixxst a backdrop of the objective legal reasonableness

Rayvie Hall v. Kimberly Flournoy

975 F.3d 1269 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 17, 2020

Qualified immunity is the added protection afforded government officials to protect them against “the costs of trial [and] the burdens of broad-reaching discovery,” as long as their conduct does not “violate clearly established … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985), the Supreme Court dealt with the second requirement -- the clearly established nature of the violation -- and held that a decision denying qualified immunity would be subject to interlocutory

Culbreath v. Block

799 F.2d 1248 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 4, 1986

Federal executive branch officials enjoy qualified immunity from suits for constitutional violations to the extent their conduct does not violate “clearly established law.” Mitchell v. … Rather, qualified immunity will be forfeited only when at the time of the conduct in question it is clearly established that plaintiffs have the particular constitutional right and that the statutory and regulatory provisions

Geter v. Fortenberry

849 F.2d 1550 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 26, 1988

Qualified immunity shields only that conduct not violative of clearly established constitutional [or statutory] rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … clearly established constitutional principles.

John David Wilson, Jr. v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

54 F.4th 652 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 29, 2022

An official enjoys qualified immunity unless: (1) the plaintiff alleges facts establishing that “the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right”; and (2) the violated right was clearly established at … We conclude that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established.

Fox v. Doran

974 F. Supp. 276 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 4, 1997

Qualified Immunity In general, public officials are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate constitutional rights that were clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred. … Even when a plaintiff’s federal rights are so clearly defined that a reasonable public official would know that his actions might violate those rights, qualified immunity might still be available as a bar to a plaintiff’s

Fielding v. Tollaksen

257 F. App'x 400 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 12, 2007

Plaintiff does not allege any facts that, if proved, would establish collaboration between the landlords and the state actors. … The police officers, in turn, are protected by qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established law, or it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that them actions did not violate the law.

Wagner v. Swarts

827 F. Supp. 2d 85 · District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 17, 2011

Determining whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity requires an answer to the following questions: (1) was a constitutionally protected right violated; and if so, (2) was that right “clearly established … Accordingly, an official is shielded by qualified immunity if his conduct either did not infringe on a “clearly established constitutional right, or if it was objectively reasonable for [him] to believe his conduct did not

Estate of James Franklin Perry v. Cheryl Wenzel

872 F.3d 439 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 18, 2017

As a result, qualified immunity is not a bar to  Perry’s suit.  … If  the  right  was clearly established, then qualified immunity is not a bar  to suit. Washington v. Haupert, 481 F.3d 543, 547 (7th Cir. 2007). 

City of Farmington v. Smith

366 Ark. 473 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 1, 2006

were violative of a clearly established law. … they knew their actions violated any clearly established laws.

Mica Spady v. Bethlehem Area School District

800 F.3d 633 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 1, 2015

“Whether an asserted federal right was clearly established at a particular time, so that a public official who allegedly violated the right has no qualified immunity from suit, presents a question of law[.]” Elder v. … We also take this opportunity to clarify Curley, which the District Court cited in declining to reach the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Bailey v. Pataki

708 F.3d 391 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 14, 2013

immunity because the right 22 at issue was not "clearly established" when the Initiative was 23 implemented. … Qualified Immunity 2 The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if 3 they can establish either that (1) "a constitutional right was 4 [not] violated" or (2) "the right was [not] clearly established

Russell v. Coughlin

774 F. Supp. 189 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 25, 1991

immunity applies because rule not clearly established in this circuit or by decisions of Supreme Court). … Given that the right to an independent assessment of the credibility of confidential informants was clearly established at the time of Hearing I, Captain Wright is not entitled to qualified immunity from liability for his

People of Three Mile Island v. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners

747 F.2d 139 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 29, 1984

immunity unless they have violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … established so as to defeat qualified immunity. 17 As stated in Part II, supra, we do not insist- on an exact factual match when a general legal proposition is clearly established.

Ryan v. Burlington County, NJ

708 F. Supp. 623 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 6, 1989

Qualified Immunity The defense of qualified immunity serves to insulate a governmental official from liability in civil damages when the discretionary conduct of that official “does not violate clearly established statutory … In determining whether caselaw evidenced a clearly established right, courts are to examine the state of the law as of the time of the challenged conduct rather than the time at which the qualified immunity defense is raised

MacDonald v. Town of Eastham

946 F. Supp. 2d 235 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 24, 2013

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields state officials from liability for damages under § 1983 where their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which *239 a reasonable person … the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation.”

United States v. Jenkins

319 F. Supp. 196 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Mar 6, 1969

Kerns v. Board of Commissioners

888 F. Supp. 2d 1176 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Aug 22, 2012

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified-Immunity Analysis. … Fitzgerald, when the Supreme Court moved to an objective test, the clearly-established prong became a part of the qualified immunity test.

Lassiter v. Alabama

28 F.3d 1146 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1994

has recognized that where the legal norms at issue are clearly established, critical factual disputes preclude the grant of qualified immunity. … Plaintiffs may also seek injunctive relief 3 Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the federal "rights" allegedly violated were "clearly established."

Corey Bland v. City of Newark

900 F.3d 77 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 15, 2018

B “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Bland’s clearly established constitutional rights, we will reverse the order of the District Court so summary judgment may be entered for Defendants. 8 Because Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity