Case law

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.

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.

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.

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.

Youngstown v. Carrier Servs. Group, Inc.

2026 Ohio 1032 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 2026

qualified immunity claim. … .): Qualified immunity shields a government official from civil liability unless (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that right was “clearly established” at the

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.

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

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

Williams v. Deputy Warden McKay

District Court, D. Idaho · Mar 31, 2022

Because determining clearly- established law is also the foundation for a qualified immunity defense, the Court includes qualified immunity considerations in its analysis. 3 Unless the parties can show otherwise … Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 12 (2015): The dispositive question [for qualified immunity] is “whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.” Ibid.

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.

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 .

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.”

Sawyers v. Norton

962 F.3d 1270 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 23, 2020

(2) The three officers were not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds because “it is . . . clearly established by Tenth Circuit precedent that [Mr.] … Although they describe the law of qualified immunity, including the clearly established law requirement, see Aplt.

Douglas Echols v. Spencer Lawton

913 F.3d 1313 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 25, 2019

The district court also ruled that Lawton enjoys qualified immunity because Echols's complaint failed to allege the violation of a right that was clearly established when Lawton sent his letter. *1319 II. … To defeat Lawton's qualified immunity, Echols must also prove that Lawton violated a constitutional right that "was 'clearly established' at the time of the challenged conduct." Plumhoff v.

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.

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.

Woodyard v. Alabama Department of Corrections

700 F. App'x 927 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 30, 2017

rights and (2) that those rights were “clearly established” at the time of the violation. … Because Woodyard must establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Leggett violated his constitutional rights before he can possibly overcome the officer’s qualified immunity defense, we address the district

Jones v. Norwood

2013 Ohio 350 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 2013

. {¶51} The doctrine of federal qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In the context of the qualified-immunity analysis, we affirmed the trial court’s determination that Jones had shown the violation of her clearly established procedural-due-process right to a predeprivation hearing.