Case law

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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

Ex parte B.T. Roberts, in his capacity as a member of the Auburn University Board of Trustees PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Patti H. Northcutt and Walter M. Northcutt v. B.T. Roberts, in his capacity as a member of the Auburn University Board of Trustees) (Lee Circuit Court: CV-22-900114).

Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 27, 2025

'To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must satisfy a two-prong test; he must show that: (1) the [public official] violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the … as follows: "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.'

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.”

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

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

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.

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.

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.