Case law

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.

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).

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.

Nowak v. Szwedo

704 F. Supp. 153 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 11, 1989

qualified immunity. … Defendants claim that qualified immunity relieves them of liability because at the time of their alleged actions there was no established case law upholding a First Amendment claim for retaliation as petty and far removed

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.

United States v. Rivera

658 F.3d 1073 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 23, 2011

qualifies as a predi- cate offense. … “Our purpose is to determine whether documentation or judicially noticeable facts clearly establish that the defendant pleaded guilty to facts covered by the predicate offense.” Id. at 968.

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.

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.

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

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

Scott v. Britton

16 S.W.3d 173 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Apr 13, 2000

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields an official performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages under section 1983, provided the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … After a governmental official asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that the defendant’s conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Henke v. Superior Court

161 Ariz. 96 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · May 10, 1989

under the defendant’s version of the facts the defendant’s conduct violated clearly established law, whether the law clearly proscribed the actions the defendant claims he took. 472 U.S. at 528 , 105 S.Ct. at 2816 , 86 L.Ed … of qualified immunity.

Primus

District Court, D. South Carolina · Feb 17, 2026

Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant in her individual capacity is further barred by qualified immunity as Plaintiff has not stated a constitutional violation. Harlow v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (noting that qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damage suits as long as the conduct in question does not “violate clearly

James Rieves v. Town of Smyrna, Tenn.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 15, 2020

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil suits for damages, so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … On a general level, “[i]t is clearly established that an arrest without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment.” Crockett v.

Johnson v. Morris

453 N.W.2d 31 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Mar 23, 1990

Qualified immunity is available if the officer did “not violate clearly established stat *39 utory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Simply stated, if the law the officer allegedly violated was “clearly established” there would exist no immunity, but, if not, qualified immunity would be available. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 819 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738-39 .

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