Case law

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”).

Martin v. Curry

13 Neb. Ct. App. 171 · Nebraska Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 2004

, had qualified immunity. … “Whether an official may prevail in his or her qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘ “objective reasonableness of [his or her] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” ’ ” Id.

Campbell v. Anderson

156 N.C. App. 371 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 4, 2003

of qualified immunity requires (1) identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determining whether at the time of the alleged violation the right was clearly established; and (3) if so, then determining … Plaintiff sufficiently identified specific rights clearly established at the time of the violation and has met the first two prongs. The third prong of the test may require a factual analysis. See Roberts v.

Danny W. TURNER v. Willie MOORE

76 So. 3d 842 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Jul 29, 2011

‘An official is entitled to qualified immunity if he is performing discretionary functions and his actions do “ ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … [’] complaint fails to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

United States v. May

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 23, 2005

The district court’s factual findings are upheld unless they are clearly erroneous, but its “legal conclusions as to the existence of probable cause are reviewed de novo.” United States v. … Greene, 250 F.3d 471, 480 (6th Cir. 2001) (“Sixth Circuit precedent clearly establishes that the affiant need only specify that the confidential informant has given accurate information in the past to qualify as reliable.

Beers v. Fouts, et al.

2018 DNH 045 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 7, 2018

In granting summary judgment in the defendants’ favor, the court found that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, in that, at the time of the pertinent group strip search, it was not clearly established … “Qualified immunity protects public officials from § 1983 suits for damages if their actions ‘d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Wetherbe v. Texas Tech University

138 F.4th 296 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 20, 2025

is qualified immunity. … However, “the ‘clearly established’ qualified immunity standard . . . . does not require that causation be clearly established,” 40 so we need not address element four.

Henry v. Purnell

619 F.3d 323 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 24, 2010

immunity defense based on whether the law is “clearly established” is a separate and required judicial action. 12 *337 The contours of that qualified immunity inquiry were laid out in Saucier. … Second, we have found no support for the proposition that a dissent may propound clearly established law for purposes of determining qualified immunity.

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.

Ed Rich v. Larry C. Dollar

841 F.2d 1558 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 15, 1988

damages action by qualified immunity pursuant to Harlow v. … However, these factual disputes do not preclude a grant of summary judgment premised on a defendant’s qualified immunity if the legal norms allegedly violated were not clearly established at the time of the challenged actions

Brian Pearson v. Tyler Eldridge

2022 DNH 039 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 28, 2022

Eldridge has moved for judgment on the pleadings based on qualified immunity. Because Eldridge has not established that qualified immunity shields him from suit, I deny the motion. I. … right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.’”

Brown v. Fortner

518 F.3d 552 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 4, 2008

The court further held that the right Fortner and Scott allegedly violated was clearly established and therefore concluded that Fortner and Scott were not entitled to qualified immunity. … Was the Right Violated Clearly Established? The second question in considering the denial of qualified immunity is whether the right violated was clearly established.

Foote v. Spiegel

118 F.3d 1416 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 8, 1997

Defendants argued Spiegel had probable cause for the arrest and reasonable suspicion for the strip search, and that he was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law. … did not violate clearly established law.

See v. City of Elyria

502 F.3d 484 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 19, 2007

by the defendant, the defendant’s actions violated clearly established law and are therefore not within the scope of the qualified immunity. … See has met his burden of establishing that Med-ders is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Term Auto Sales, Inc. v. City of Cleveland

996 F.2d 1217 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 28, 1993

II. 10 Defendants argue on appeal that they are entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs' § 1983 claim because Ohio law on the status of federal certification labels was not clearly established at the time of their … See Robinson, 840 F.2d at 351 (explaining that a question must be decided by the highest state court in the state where the case arose in order to be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity).

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

Hill v. Quigley

336 F. Supp. 3d 283 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 28, 2018

Plaintiff also argues that references to "immunity" within the charge improperly invited the jury to speculate on the question of qualified immunity. The word "immunity" appeared twice in my charge. … The reference to "immunity" did not muddle the applicable legal standards. The doctrine of qualified immunity is a question of law for the Court, see Hunter v.

Baar v. Jefferson County Board of Education

686 F. Supp. 2d 699 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Feb 19, 2010

As the Sixth Circuit explained, “[u]nder this judicially created exception, government officials are immune from civil liability when acting in an official capacity if their actions do not violate ‘clearly established statutory … These two recent cases do not give clearly established guidance in our circumstances.

Sharon Powell v. Jennifer Snook

25 F.4th 912 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 8, 2022

The qualified immunity issue before us is the familiar one of whether clearly established law put Snook on notice that firing the shots he did violated David Powell’s constitutional rights. … For qualified immun- ity to apply, an officer “must first establish that he acted within his discretionary authority.” Morton v. Kirkwood, 707 F.3d 1276, 1280 (11th Cir. 2013).

Crawford v. Geiger

131 F. Supp. 3d 703 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 22, 2015

The Sixth Circuit has summarized the doctrine of qualified immunity and related principles: Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate clearly established … before trial whether the defendant did acts that violate clearly established rights.”