Case 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.

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

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).

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.”

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.

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.'

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.