Case law

Phillips v. Pike

District Court, W.D. Missouri · Sep 7, 2021

Qualified Immunity Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity in a § 1983 claim unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right … Deputy Childers is entitled to qualified immunity on this initial entry and seizure claim because his conduct was objectively reasonable and did not violate clearly established law.

United States v. Abdalla

327 F. Supp. 3d 1079 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Aug 29, 2018

Greene , 250 F.3d 471 , 480 (6th Cir. 2001) ("Circuit precedent clearly establishes that *1087 the affiant need only specify that the confidential informant has given accurate information in the past to qualify as reliable … While the address above the judge's signature was wrong, that was clearly the result of Agent Brandon Gooch cutting and pasting from an earlier warrant.

Miller v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 14, 2025

“The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Both are entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Kohl v. Casson

5 F.3d 1141 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 28, 1993

Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 342 , 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1097 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986), the Court held that the function of seeking an arrest warrant is subject only to qualified immunity, not absolute immunity. … and enjoys only qualified immunity, just as the police officer was held to have in Malley .

Lewis Floyd, Jr., vs Duane Corder

426 F. App'x 790 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 13, 2011

To defeat qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that “(1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Id. … immunity because his actions did not violate Floyd’s “clearly established rights.”

Torchinsky v. Siwinski

942 F.2d 257 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 9, 1991

A. 12 The basic purposes of qualified immunity bear repeating. … This objective test involves an inquiry into whether a government official has violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v.

Lee v. Mihalich

847 F.2d 66 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 17, 1988

In furtherance of these policies, the discriminant for qualified immunity focuses on the objective legal reasonableness of an official’s acts under law which has been clearly established at the time he acts. … A government official will be denied qualified immunity for having violated a clearly established right when “in the light of preexisting law the unlawfulness [is] apparent.” Anderson, 107 S.Ct. at 3039 .

Farrar v. Worrell

District Court, W.D. Virginia · May 9, 2022

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability “so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Harris, 65 F.3d 347, 359-60 (4th Cir. 1995) (“If a plaintiff has alleged a clearly established right, summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is improper as long as there remains any material factual dispute

Eric Morillo v. Monmouth County Sheriff's

222 N.J. 104 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 13, 2015

Qualified immunity shields officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Ed. 2d at 866- 67 (reiterating that qualified immunity protects public officials from suit for violations of clearly established statutory or constitutional rights unless action was plainly incompetent or knowing violation

Sockwell v. Town of Calhoun City

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Aug 5, 2019

Thomas, 843 F.3d 172, 177 (5th 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 and, if so, (2) whether

Doe v. Oregon State University

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 13, 2022

Additionally, the Court is unaware of any case indicating a district court opinion alone, without at least some appellate court precedent, qualifies as clearly established precedent in the qualified immunity context. … Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a clearly established property interest in his continued enrollment at OSU, the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Moulton v. Prosper

District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 11, 2019

To overcome the qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show that the officer deprived him of a constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged offense. See Saucier v. … To circumvent the Defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity, the Plaintiff therefore bears the burden of establishing that the officers violated his “clearly established” constitutional right to be free from the

Bass v. Richards

308 F.3d 1081 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 14, 2002

It is subject to appeal, however, when the defendants are public officials asserting a qualified immunity defense and the appealed issue is whether a given set of facts establishes that defendants violated clearly established … Instead, Appellants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Bass’ right to affiliate himself with Vorhies, an unannounced candidate, was not clearly established at the time his commission was removed.

Karen Hardy v. Broward Co. Sheriff's Office

238 F. App'x 435 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 6, 2007

established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” … As we concluded above, Appellants failed to establish that the Deputies violated clearly established constitutional law, and therefore, the Deputies are entitled to qualified immunity.

Eugene F. Assaf v. George C. Fields Gary E. Crowell

178 F.3d 170 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 19, 1999

Nonetheless, it held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that Assaf could not be fired for political reasons. See id. at 633. III. … to qualified immunity.

Connelly v. Hall

District Court, S.D. Florida · Apr 15, 2025

Once qualified immunity is raised by a defendant, and it is established that the government official was acting within his/her discretionary authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity … Therefore, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and the Court need not address whether the law was clearly established. IV.

Suasnavas v. Stover

196 F. App'x 647 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 25, 2006

court’s denial of qualified immunity. … “[W]here the right is clearly established, a defendant should only rarely be able to succeed with a qualified immunity defense.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Gomes, 451 F.3d at 1134-35. D.

Arthur Clark Melissa Clark v. Earl Link R.E. Combs, and Charles Britt Fredrickia Britt Frank Stanley

855 F.2d 156 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 16, 1988

Since the issue in this appeal is the validity of the deputies’ plea of qualified immunity, we consider first the principles governing qualified immunity. We take it as clearly established that under Malley v. … by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.

Williams v. Zachary

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Aug 27, 2021

Thomas, 843 F.3d 172, 177 (5th 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

Birbiglia v. Saint Vincent Hospital, Inc.

427 Mass. 80 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 16, 1998

Geltman, 406 Mass. 811, 816-817 [1990]) would not be thereby shown to have failed to qualify for immunity. … The specific intent that would be required to establish that the action of the board violated any duty of good faith and fair dealing cannot be established by aggregating the knowledge of all hospital employees acting within