Case law

Leslie Atkinson v. Brent Godfrey

100 F.4th 498 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 2, 2024

Under that prong, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity if, at the time of the challenged conduct, the law did not clearly establish that the officer’s conduct was unconstitutional. … Instead, under prong two of the qualified immunity analysis, we held that the constitutional rights Atkinson claimed Godfrey violated were not clearly established at the time of Godfrey’s conduct.

Robert Jack Hayter v. City of Mount Vernon, Harold Sullivan, Jr., Franklin County Reserve Deputy, Tyler Bannister, Mount Vernon Police Officer

154 F.3d 269 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 21, 1998

infringed was “clearly established];.]” 516 U.S. at 312-313 , 116 S.Ct. 834 (citations omitted). … Next, even if a public official’s conduct has violated a clearly established constitutional right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his or her conduct was objectively reasonable. Id.

Barna v. Board of School Directors of the Panther Valley School District

877 F.3d 136 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 7, 2017

“clearly established.” … The court further concluded that the defendants who issued the notices were not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established that such an absolute prohibition of challenges the ban based on its absolute

Dicks Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Jenne

740 So. 2d 576 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 21, 1999

Initially, the trial court denied the motion, finding that Deputy Biernacki had "failed to establish his entitlement to qualified immunity as a matter of law, particularly in light of the court's prior ruling that the arrest … decision on the qualified immunity issue; and the record before this court does not support a finding that the prior rulings were clearly erroneous.

Mathis v. Centurion Correctional Healthcare of New Mexico, LLC

District Court, D. New Mexico · Jun 16, 2023

or whether the law was clearly established. … That case is insufficient to overcome the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity defense. Cf. Cummings, 913 F.3d at 1244 (“Plaintiffs' reliance on Gardner is patently misguided.

Nina J. Lechiara v. Gary M. Gaskins Kenneth L. Gorby Stephen R. Dolly Geraldine Floyd

866 F.2d 1416 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 23, 1989

Second, each of the defendants was immune from Sec. 1983 liability for his actions. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (magistrates' judicial immunity); Imbler v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815-16 (1982) (state trooper's qualified immunity for actions not violative of clearly established rights of which reasonable person would know). 3 For the above reasons the district court's dismissal

Forsyth v. Kleindienst

551 F. Supp. 1247 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 1982

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … Under the Harlow standard, a government official is immune from suit if the law was not clearly established at the time of the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct.

California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.

445 U.S. 97 · Supreme Court of the United States · Mar 3, 1980

The “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed” goal of the state policy was to “displace unfettered business freedom in the matter of the establishment and relocation of automobile dealerships.” Id., at 109 . … These decisions establish two standards for antitrust immunity under Parker v. Brown .

Walsingham v. Dockery

671 So. 2d 166 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 21, 1996

concerned whether certain given facts showed a violation of clearly established law. … Doe, 38 F.3d 1559, 1563 (11th Cir.1994) ("the issue of a government official's qualified immunity from suit presents a question of law"). The test for qualified immunity was established in Harlow v.

Mason v. Stock

955 F. Supp. 1293 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 30, 1997

Qualified Immunity Standards Qualified immunity protects public officials from individual liability in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action unless the officials violated “clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable … that an officer is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time a constitutional violation occurred.

Yates v. Stalder

217 F.3d 332 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 30, 2000

immunity grounds, claiming that his conduct did not violate any of Plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional or statutory rights. … Equal Protection The first step in qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a “violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Hare v.

McCall v. The County of Lowndes

District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jan 9, 2023

Alternatively, the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs have failed to show, through binding caselaw or legal principles of obvious application, that it was clearly established at … See Griffin Indus., 496 F.3d at 1199 (“Only when the official violated the law and the illegality of his conduct was clearly established must the court deny him the protection of qualified immunity.”).

Barbara Wyatt v. Rhonda Fletcher

718 F.3d 496 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 31, 2013

This requirement establishes a high bar. When there is no controlling authority specifically prohibiting a defendant’s conduct, the law is not clearly established for the purposes of defeating qualified immunity. … Because this is a qualified immunity case, a balancing of interests requires a clearly established right.

United States v. Murdock

284 U.S. 141 · Supreme Court of the United States · Nov 23, 1931

, and also that the lack of state power to give witnesses protection against federal prosecution does not defeat a. state immunity statute. … The principle established is that full and complete immunity against prosecution by the government compelling the witness, to answer is equivalent to the protection furnished by the rule agáinst compulsory self-incrimination

Michael E. v. State

286 Neb. 532 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Sep 6, 2013

Whether a state official should pre- vail in a qualified immunity defense depends upon the objective reasonableness of his or her conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law. 26. … Qualified immunity shields state officials in their individual capacities from civil damages if their conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have

Jonathan v. Nally

178 Vt. 222 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jul 22, 2005

The officers moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis of qualified immunity, asserting that they had not violated any clearly established federal law or state rights. … Furthermore, once the issue was raised, Sprague had the burden to rebut the qualified immunity defense “by establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.

Robert Tolan v. Jeffrey Cotton

713 F.3d 299 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 26, 2013

“The second prong of the qualified immunity test is [] understood as two separate inquiries: whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident; and, if so, … clearly- established law.

Hartzell v. Marana Unified School District

130 F.4th 722 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 5, 2025

“Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Krainski merely held that “the doctrine of qualified immunity protects state actors when the constitutional right at issue was not ‘clearly established’ at the time of the actions at issue.” 616 F.3d at 970 (quoting Saucier

Breault v. CHAIRMAN OF BD, FIRE COMMR. OF SPRINGFIELD

401 Mass. 26 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 13, 1987

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987) (principle of qualified immunity allows defendant to seek summary judgment on ground that, on "clearly established principles [of law]," he could have reasonably believed his acts to be … established rule of immunity.

Halterman

District Court, W.D. Missouri · Feb 18, 2026

immunity analysis, while the latter, “arguable probable cause,” goes to the “clearly established prong” of the qualified immunity analysis. … to qualified immunity.”