Case law

Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. San Perdido Ass'n

37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 691 · Supreme Court of Florida · Nov 15, 2012

There is an important difference between a departure from the essential requirements of law where there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law and a case that involves an issue of law where the law … Without such controlling precedent, we cannot conclude that either court violated a ‘clearly established principle of law.’ ” (quoting Stilson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 692 So.2d 979, 982-83 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997))).

Burkes v. Klauser

185 Wis. 2d 308 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1994

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987). 5 The standard of objective legal reasonableness used in determining qualified immunity requires the court to focus on the degree to which clearly established case law gives guidance to … When a court decides a motion for summary judgment based on the defense of qualified immunity, it must determine from the complaint whether the plaintiff has alleged facts establishing a claim for a violation of a clearly

Savage v. State

72 Wash. App. 483 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 8, 1994

We therefore hold that the State is entitled to qualified immunity to the extent the plaintiff relies on the actions of parole officers to establish the State’s liability for negligence under a respondeat superior theory. … Justice Andersen's dissent disputes this characterization of the law in Washington and argues that Guffey, Spurrell and Frost clearly establish that, where an employee has immunity, the State cannot be held liable on a respondeat

Eric Earnest, Jr. v. Genesee Cnty., Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 28, 2021

constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established.” … clearly established).

Bronche Johnson v. California Department of Corrections

384 F. App'x 625 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 17, 2010

The district court properly entered summary judgment on Johnson’s claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) based on qualified immunity because the pertinent law was not clearly established … Callahan, 129 S.Ct. 808, 822 (2009) (holding that state officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law); see also Warsoldier v.

Randall Kevin Jones v. Officer S. Fransen

857 F.3d 843 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 19, 2017

Nor does binding precedent allow for the conclusion that Defendant Officers’ employment of Draco in the circumstances of this case violated Jones’s clearly established rights, so the officers have qualified immunity. … In summary, we conclude that Defendant Officers Fransen, Towler, and Ross are entitled to qualified immunity because binding precedent does not clearly establish that their actions in allowing Draco to apprehend Jones violated

Nathan Freidhoff, Individually, Michelle Freidhoff and Todd Freidhoff, Individually and as Parents and Next Friends of Nathan Freidhoff v. Johnston Community School District, Mitch Eagles and Brett Becker

Court of Appeals of Iowa · May 13, 2026

established at the time of the alleged violation.” … established at the time of the alleged violation.”

BLASH v. CITY OF HAWKINSVILLE AND PULASKI COUNTY GEORGIA SHERRIF'S OFFICE

District Court, M.D. Georgia · Dec 30, 2019

To establish the defense of qualified immunity, a defendant must first show that he acted within the scope of his discretionary authority in performing the challenged conduct, and if so, the plaintiff has the burden to … When a mixed motive theory of discrimination is advanced, qualified immunity can still apply because it is clearly established that “state officials ‘can be motivated, in part, by a dislike or hostility toward a certain

Daniels v. CITY OF HARTFORD, ALA.

645 F. Supp. 2d 1036 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 18, 2009

In the context of qualified immunity cases that turn on the presence or absence of probable cause, an official has not committed a clearly established constitutional violation if either actual or arguable probable cause existed … a clearly established constitutional right. 12 Thus, the Court finds that Sheriff Olsen is protected from suit for the conditions of confinement at the Dale County Detention Facility by the doctrine of qualified immunity

United States v. Lopez

147 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 16, 1998

Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979), the Court established the requirements for attacking the composition of a jury: In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show … It clearly did not deprive him of a fair trial. Defense counsel was able to cope effectively with the shortened period of preparation.

Ingram v. Township of Deptford

858 F. Supp. 2d 386 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 13, 2012

deprivation violated clearly established law. … was clearly established.

Strickland v. Shotts

408 F. Supp. 2d 633 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 24, 2004

Immunity Defense In Plaintiffs Brief in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, counsel for the plaintiff raised the potential issue of Shotts’ ability to raise an *639 affirmative defense of qualified immunity … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (establishing the objective standard for qualified immunity) and Rakovich v.

Hsien I. Peng v. Mei Chin Penghu Jonathan Hu S. Gage, Los Angeles County Deputy, Badge No. 406857, Sued Individually

335 F.3d 970 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 10, 2003

The first order granted Deputy Gage qualified immunity from suit. … Qualified Immunity Next, we address whether Gage was properly'granted qualified immunity.

Lucas v. Otsego County Sheriff Richard J. Devlin Jr.

139 A.D.3d 1196 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 12, 2016

Supreme Court determined that, among other things, defendants were shielded from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity and granted their motion. Plaintiff now appeals. We affirm. … Defendants nevertheless have qualified immunity for their conduct if they did "not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known" (Mullenix v Luna, US

Tammi Taylor v. Pam Palmer

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 7, 2023

Taylor to overcome the mayor’s qualified immunity by showing (1) that the mayor violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct … What matters here is not how this issue would be resolved on the merits but only that the law was not clearly established—so the mayor has qualified immunity.

Jones v. Muniz

349 F. Supp. 3d 377 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Nov 21, 2018

Qualified immunity generally protects government officials when performing discretionary functions, *383 such as arrests, "from liability for civil damages" if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity is a question of law, asking whether the right at issue was "clearly established in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: The contours of the right must

Geronimo Lozano v. State of New Jersey

9 F.4th 239 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 16, 2021

A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless the plaintiff shows that the officer violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Rather, we may only “review whether the set of facts identified by the district court is sufficient to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Id.

Ruben Sebastian v. Javier Ortiz

918 F.3d 1301 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 14, 2019

Qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Now to the “clearly established” question. A plaintiff can show the violation of a clearly established right in a few ways. See Vinyard, 311 F.3d at 1350–52.

James Tomer v. Daryl Gates, Jerry Bova, Luis Lopez, Raymond Lombardo, Michael Ranshaw, and the City of Los Angeles

811 F.2d 1240 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 27, 1987

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526-27 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815-16 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985), established the rule that denial of a qualified immunity defense, like the denial of absolute immunity, is immediately appealable as a final … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Sean Rambert, Sr. v. City of Greenville

107 F.4th 388 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 12, 2024

But an officer is not entitled to “qualified immunity if he or she deprived an individual of a constitutional right and that right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” … But that is not how the clearly established prong of qualified immunity works. Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”