Case law

Joshua Paul English v. Officer Jonathan Fowler

75 F.4th 1151 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 27, 2023

They argued that they are entitled to qualified immunity from the claim of ex- cessive force. … that violated clearly established law.”

Depaul Industries v. Benjamin Miller

14 F.4th 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 28, 2021

MILLER DISCUSSION Miller is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … CONCLUSION Miller is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate DePaul’s clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

Phillip Turner v. Driver

848 F.3d 678 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 16, 2017

The court reasoned that Turner failed to meet his burden of showing that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because he failed to show that their actions violated any of his clearly established statutory … violates that right.” 17 Thus, the right must already be clearly established “at the time of the challenged conduct.” 18 When considering whether a defendant is entitled to *686 qualified immunity, the court “must ask whether

Barbara Coleman v. Houston Independent School District, Anita Ellis

113 F.3d 528 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 19, 1997

“Denial of summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity is immediately appealable to the extent that the question on appeal is whether the undisputed facts amount to a violation of clearly established law.” … a clearly established constitutional right.

Romer v. Morgenthau

119 F. Supp. 2d 346 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 26, 2000

absolute or qualified immunity. … See discussion supra; Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 (allowing qualified immunity if defendant “does not violate clearly established” rights of which “a reasonable person would have known”).

Estate of Madison Jody Jensen v. Clyde

989 F.3d 848 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 2, 2021

right was clearly established at the time in question. … Jensen’s rights, those rights were not clearly established.

Breidenbach v. Bolish

126 F.3d 1288 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 10, 1997

Agent Gesi moved to dismiss the action on qualified immunity grounds, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that Agent Gesi violated a clearly established constitutional right. … Once the defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff assumes the burden of showing that the defendant has violated clearly established law. See Pueblo Neighborhood Health Ctrs., Inc. v.

Durso v. Taylor

624 A.2d 449 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 1993

“A plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official’s qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct … Qualified immunity: objective legal reasonableness. Even if Durso had violated Taylor’s right to due process, we hold that he had qualified immunity for his actions.

Kedra v. Schroeter

161 F. Supp. 3d 359 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2016

Under these circumstances, the vio-lative nature of Defendant’s alleged conduct has not been clearly established, and so Defendant is necessarily entitled to qualified immunity. IV. … at issue was clearly established.

John E. Green v. J. Kenneth Brantley, Edgar v. Lewis, Craig R. Smith, Garland P. Castleberry

941 F.2d 1146 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 12, 1991

The doctrine of qualified immunity affords immunity from suit to government officials performing discretionary functions as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … that make out violations of clearly established law.

Welch v. Spaulding

627 F. App'x 479 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 30, 2015

immunity because Welch failed to show that they violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … . —, 134 S.Ct. 2012, 2023 , 188 L.Ed.2d 1056 (2014) (“An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was ‘clearly established

Dimmitt v. City of Clearwater

985 F.2d 1565 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 23, 1993

Ordinarily a litigant offering a facial constitutional challenge to a statute must establish that “no set of circumstances exist under which the Act would be valid.” United States v. … To summarize, by exempting only government flags from the permit requirement, section 134.008(18) clearly restricts speech based upon its content.

Easter v. Powell

467 F.3d 459 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 10, 2006

decide if the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law at the time of the incident.11 A government official is entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) the plaintiff failed … When a government official violates a constitutional right, the official is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity if his or her conduct is objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law.27 A law is “clearly

William Felkner v. Rhode Island College

Supreme Court of Rhode Island · Apr 20, 2023

Further, Felkner argues that qualified immunity does not apply to his request for equitable relief and that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because Felkner’s constitutional rights were established by … does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Smith v. Kansas City, Missouri Police Department

586 F.3d 576 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 9, 2009

. *580 Qualified immunity shields government actors from suit unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional or statutory rights that a reasonable person would have known. Henderson v. … was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.”

Estate of Hill ex rel. Hill v. Miracle

853 F.3d 306 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 4, 2017

Miracle’s qualified-immunity defense 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 … Miracle is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on Hill’s § 1983 claim of excessive force. 2. Hill’s Fourth Amendment right was not clearly established.

Randall v. Scott

610 F.3d 701 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 30, 2010

Alternatively, even if the allegations in the complaint were sufficent to establish a First Amendment violation, the court concluded that Scott was entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate clearly established … claim for violation of his First Amendment rights; and (3) Scott is entitled to qualified immunity because Randall’s constitutional rights at issue were not clearly established at the time of Scott’s alleged misconduct

Henes v. Morrissey

194 Wis. 2d 338 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1995

The relevant inquiry in a qualified immunity case is: [ W]hether a reasonable state official could have believed his or her act was constitutional "in light of clearly established law and the information [he or she] possessed … 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 officials *347 faced with a particular

Estate of Derek Williams, Jr. v. Jeffrey Cline

902 F.3d 643 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 31, 2018

Substantive qualified immunity analysis encompasses two distinct questions: (1) whether defendants violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether that "right was 'clearly established' at the time of the challenged conduct … qualified immunity."

Damon Wilson v. Prince George's County, Md

893 F.3d 213 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 18, 2018

Nevertheless, we affirm the district court’s determination that Officer Gill is entitled to qualified immunity, because we hold that the constitutional violation was not clearly established when the incident occurred. … A right need not be recognized by a court in a specific factual context before such right may be considered “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity.