Case law

Jody Lombardo v. City of St. Louis

38 F.4th 684 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 29, 2022

In concluding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity due to the lack of a clearly established right, we stated that, under the cases in this circuit addressing prone restraint, “there is no clearly established … Because the right at issue was not clearly established, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Drennon v. Blades

District Court, D. Idaho · Dec 26, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects state officials from personal liability for on-the-job conduct so long as the conduct is objectively reasonable and does not violate an inmate’s clearly-established federal … ”; and (2) whether that right was clearly established.

Jain v. Bd. Of Educ. Of Butler School Dist. 53

366 F. Supp. 3d 1014 · District Court, E.D. Illinois · Mar 12, 2019

. 5 In general, qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages " 'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … of qualified immunity. 6 C.

Ruffins v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

701 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2010

“clearly established federal law” for the purposes of qualified immunity. … At the time the Second Circuit had Earley before it for consideration, the relevant law may have been clearly established for the purposes of AEDPA and not clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity.

Daily Services, LLC v. Tracy Valentino

756 F.3d 893 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 2014

Qualified Immunity’s Clearly Established Law and Parratt Our qualified immunity analysis first addresses the sole basis for the district court’s decision: whether Daily Services’ claimed constitutional right was “clearly … The applicability of Parratt , then, is irrelevant to the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Booth v. City of Dallas

312 F.R.D. 427 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 18, 2015

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields ‘government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … That is, even if a government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is entitled to immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable. See Davis v.

Linton v. Zorn

135 F.4th 19 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 24, 2025

Linton contends “that Amnesty America clearly established law for qualified immunity purposes.” Appellant Br. at 30 n.8. … Town of West Hartford clearly established a right for qualified immunity purposes, consistent with our holding in Edrei v.

Harvey v. Nichols

260 Ga. App. 187 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Feb 27, 2003

The doctrine of official immunity, also known as qualified immunity, offers public officers and employees limited protection from suit in their personal capacity. … Qualified immunity protects individual public agents from personal liability for discretionary actions taken within the scope of their official authority, and done without wilfulness, malice, or corruption.

Carradine v. State

494 N.W.2d 77 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Dec 29, 1992

legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … Carradine failed to show the search of his person was conducted with excessive force or violated any clearly established law.

Hassell v. Fischer

96 F. Supp. 3d 370 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 1, 2015

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “protects public officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability in a civil suit for damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity, therefore, turns on whether and when the rights that Hassell invokes were “clearly established.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 .

Kevin M. Leckelt v. Board of Commissioners of Hospital District No. 1

909 F.2d 820 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 28, 1990

Thus, the district court was not clearly erroneous in finding that Leekelt failed to establish that he was discriminated against solely because of a perception that he was infected with HIV. … We are unable to conclude that the district court was clearly erroneous in finding that Leckelt did not establish pretext. C.

Robert Reese, Jr. v. County of Sacramento

888 F.3d 1030 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 23, 2018

Rose’s entitlement to qualified immunity therefore turns on whether Reese’s right was clearly established at the time of the incident in 2011. … Ct. at 310 (quotation marks omitted).1 Absent a showing by Reese that the right was clearly established at the time, Rose is entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment excessive force claim.

Shelly Ioane v. Jean Noll

903 F.3d 929 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 10, 2018

Clearly Established The second part of the qualified immunity test requires us to determine whether, at the time of Agent Noll’s actions in June 2006, the law was clearly established. … But the existence of a constitutional violation alone is insufficient to deny qualified immunity—we must find that the right at issue was “clearly established.”

Heller v. Plave

743 F. Supp. 1553 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 18, 1990

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity insulates government officials from personal liability for actions within their discretionary authority. Harlow v. … Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity requires two inquiries: (1) whether the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct; and, (2) whether the alleged misconduct violated that clearly

McMullen v. Starkville Oktibbeha Consolidated School District

200 F. Supp. 3d 649 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jul 29, 2016

To raise qualified immunity, “[a]n officer need only plead his good faith, which then shifts the burden to the plaintiff, who must rebut the defense by establishing that the officer’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly … A civil rights “plaintiff can overcome a qualified immunity defense by showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged

Tom Johnson v. Patrick McCarver

942 F.3d 405 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 1, 2019

was clearly established at the time of the incident. … McCarver and LaLuzerne violated Johnson’s clearly established right and qualified immunity does not apply.

Rodriguez v. Tisch

688 F. Supp. 1530 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 19, 1988

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … “Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of a clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell v.

Thomas Cannon v. Village of Bald Head Island

891 F.3d 489 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 30, 2018

“Because the first two prongs of the test are questions of law, an employer is entitled to qualified immunity if either prong cannot be resolved under clearly established law.” Crouse, 848 F.3d at 583. … In sum, under our qualified immunity analysis, at the time of the disclosures this Court’s precedent clearly established that the allegedly stigmatizing statements were made public by Peck.

Thomas v. City of Phila.

290 F. Supp. 3d 371 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 2, 2018

Instead, the Court concludes that any procedural due process right is not (and was not at the relevant time) clearly established, meaning that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity in this case. A. … In any event, the real battle on the Brady count is qualified immunity: did police officers (as opposed to prosecutors) have clearly established Brady duties in 1993? In Gibson v.

Weise v. Casper

593 F.3d 1163 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 27, 2010

Because the constitutional right asserted by the Plaintiffs was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, we affirm the grant of qualified immunity. … But in qualified immunity cases, except in the most obvious cases, broad, general propositions of law are insufficient to suggest clearly established law. See Brousseau v.