Case law

Moody v. City of Key West

805 So. 2d 1018 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 26, 2001

In order for the plaintiffs to overcome the claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiffs must show that the defendant officers violated clearly established law of *1022 which a reasonable person would have known. … As the case law has explained: For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it

Dokman v. County of Hennepin

637 N.W.2d 286 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Dec 18, 2001

A governmental official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity if the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights that a reasonable person would … Evaluating a claim of qualified immunity involves two inquiries: (1) “whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right”; and (2) whether an officer could reasonably have believed

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.

Perea v. Baca

817 F.3d 1198 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 4, 2016

Baca and Jaramillo timely appealed the denial of qualified immunity. … not violate clearly established law.

Clayborne v. Brown

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 20, 2023

violation; and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … But where the law was clearly established, both qualified immunity questions must be addressed. Id.

Lubcke v. Boise City/Ada County Housing Authority

124 Idaho 450 · Idaho Supreme Court · Sep 9, 1993

Under Harlow , Worrell is entitled to qualified immunity only if she did not violate clearly established constitutional law. … Thus, Worrell should be immune from suit *465 if: a) it was not clearly established law in 1986 that a public employee may not be terminated for her exercise of her First Amendment rights, and b) it was not clearly established

Feigin v. Digital Interactive Associates, Inc.

1999 Colo. J. C.A.R. 683 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 1999

Qualified Immunity The commissioner contends that the trial court erred in denying his summary judgment motion requesting a finding that he was immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. We agree. … Whether a right is clearly established is a question of law, and, in reviewing a qualified immunity determination, we must use our full knowledge of all relevant precedents. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. v.

Barboza v. D'Agata

151 F. Supp. 3d 363 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 10, 2015

In this Circuit, even if the right was clearly established, an.officer is entitled to qualified immunity if it was objectively. reasonable for the officer to believe the conduct at issue was lawful, Gonzalez v. … That’s the first prong of the qualified immunity test. *371 I also find that plaintiffs right not to be arrested for the expression at issue was clearly established.

Scott Rabin v. Michael Flynn

725 F.3d 628 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 9, 2013

We find that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful arrest claim, because even if the officers had known what that type of license was, it still would have been reasonable under clearly established … “[A] court may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law without first resolving whether the purported right exists.”

Frank Minor v. Delaware River & Bay Authority

70 F.4th 168 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 8, 2023

“To resolve a claim of qualified immunity, [we] en- gage in a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether the plaintiff suffi- ciently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established … clearly established constitutional right.”

Jenkins v. Hale

6 So. 3d 452 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Oct 10, 2008

Therefore, whether Sheriff Hale is entitled to qualified immunity from Jenkins’s § 1983 claim turns on whether the “complaint ... allege[s] the violation of [that] clearly established constitutional right.” … On a motion to dismiss a § 1983 claim because of qualified immunity, this Court looks to the complaint to determine only whether the “ ‘ “complaint ... allege[s] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right

Gloria Bustillos v. El Paso County Hospital Dist

891 F.3d 214 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 23, 2018

The district court held those allegations cannot overcome the Doctors’ and Nurses’ qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly-established. We agree and affirm on that ground. … Granting of qualified immunity on the “clearly-established” prong is not the same as holding that no constitutional violation occurred. That would conflate the two prongs of qualified immunity.

Naumovski v. Norris

934 F.3d 200 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 12, 2019

Qualified Immunity A government official is entitled to immunity from suit whenever (1) his conduct “did not violate clearly established law,” or (2) “it was objectively reasonable for [the official] to believe that … Because Naumovski has failed to produce evidence that could establish that Defendants themselves clearly violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights, Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity

Schmidt v. Stassi

250 F. Supp. 3d 99 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Apr 21, 2017

Governmental officers sued in their individual capacity are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct “did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Thus, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the filming claim because filming the exterior of a ear in a public parking lot did not violated clearly established constitutional law. V.

Doe v. Hennepin County

858 F.2d 1325 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 6, 1988

immunity. … This claim is barred by qualified immunity unless evidence of malice or improper motives on the part of defendants is proved. Myers, 810 F.2d at 1457 .

Ledea v. Metro-Dade County Police Department

681 F. App'x 728 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 27, 2017

To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id. at 1137 . … The officers do not assert the district court erred in its resolution of the second prong of qualified immunity—that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Vette v. Sanders

989 F.3d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 5, 2021

Vette’s clearly established rights under the Fourth Amendment.6 It accordingly held Sergeant Sanders was not entitled to qualified immunity. Sergeant Sanders timely appealed. Although Mr. … Legal Standards and Standard of Review “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

The West Virginia State Police, Department of Military Affairs v. J.H., a Minor, by and through His Parent and Next Friend, L.D.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 26, 2021

it violated a clearly established law or right in performing its discretionary functions. … Next, we must move forward in the qualified immunity analysis and determine whether J.H. has alleged that the acts of the Trooper Defendants were in violation of clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or

Villarreal v. City of Laredo

134 F.4th 273 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 8, 2025

Ct. 2088, 2093 (2012) (qualified immunity applies unless officials “violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct”). … The qualified immunity inquiry asks whether an officer “violate[d] clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818.

Ansley v. Heinrich

925 F.2d 1339 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 11, 1991

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity protects public officials, acting within the scope of their discretionary authority and under clearly established law, from insubstantial lawsuits. Butz v. … In Harlow , the Supreme Court stated that the immunity defense should fail if the law governing the official’s actions has been clearly established.