Case 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.

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).

Ricciuti v. Gyzenis

834 F.3d 162 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 24, 2016

The individual defendants also argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct was not prohibited by clearly established law at the time of Ricciuti’s termination. … Town of Wolcott, 599 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2010), that “even where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official

Jamie Peterson v. David Heymes

931 F.3d 546 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2019

Qualified immunity protects an official from liability if the official’s conduct does not violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known were in existence. … Peterson fails to plead clearly established constitutional violations with respect to each federal claim.

Neal W. Roland v. Perry Johnson, Thomas Phillips, Dale Foltz, Bernie Toland

933 F.2d 1009 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 22, 1991

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1988), the Supreme Court refined the qualified immunity test developed in Harlow. … Accordingly, defendants' claim of qualified immunity is without merit. 9 The defendants next assert the district court erred in entering judgment in Roland's favor.

Everson v. Leis

556 F.3d 484 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 20, 2009

, and (2) whether that right was clearly established.” … But under § 1983, “an arresting agent is entitled to qualified immunity if he or she could reasonably (even if erroneously) have believed that the arrest was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information

Kemp v. Liebel

229 F. Supp. 3d 828 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 20, 2017

To survive summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, therefore, Plaintiffs must establish that the right they claim was clearly established in this judicial circuit. Jacobs, 215 F.3d at 767. … Thus we hold that Plaintiffs have failed to meet the “clearly established” standard sufficient to defeat Mr. Liebel’s qualified immunity defense to their claims.

HARAPAT v. Vigil

676 F. Supp. 2d 1250 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Oct 13, 2009

Clearly Established Law. … Qualified immunity shields state officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Denise Hughes v. Monique Locure

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 29, 2026

Though we typically re- view only final decisions, “the question of whether a complaint states a violation of clearly established law sufficient to overcome a qualified immunity defense does present … The district court also applied the third method in ruling that Moss’s rights were sufficiently clearly established to overcome Locure’s qualified immunity defense.

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).

Nevarez v. Coleman

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jan 24, 2023

The qualified-immunity defense to such claims shields government officials who perform discretionary functions from suit and liability under section 1983, “unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory … Thus, an “officer will be entitled to qualified immunity if no constitutional violation occurred or if the conduct ‘did not violate law clearly established at the time.’” Davis v.

Stephenson v. Doe

332 F.3d 68 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 13, 2003

The court later emphasized that this law was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. … Yet under the same “clearly established law,” the jury nevertheless found that Dingier was also entitled to qualified immunity.

Gardner v. Rogers

224 Ga. App. 165 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Dec 20, 1996

“[T]he test for determining whether a defendant is protected from suit by the doctrine of qualified immunity is the objective reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law. … On a motion for summary judgment, if the applicable law was clearly established at the time the defendant acted, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law

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 .

Christopher H. Harris v. Asa Hutchinson, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Arkansas; And Patrick Fisk, Individually and in His Official Capacity

591 S.W.3d 778 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 9, 2020

The General Assembly clearly intended to subject the State to liability under the AWBA. Ark. Code Ann. § 21-1-602(5); Smith v. … , the legislature has established the Arkansas State Claims Commission so that claims against the State may be addressed while preserving the State’s sovereign immunity.

Toth v. Bethel Township

268 F. Supp. 3d 725 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 24, 2017

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. … Even where a plaintiff has shown the violation of constitutional rights, an individual defendant will still enjoy qualified immunity unless those rights were clearly established at the time- of -the violation.

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.

Caretolive v. Von Eschenbach

525 F. Supp. 2d 952 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 4, 2007

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suit for damages as long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Instead, to establish that a right was clearly established in a qualified immunity analysis, this Court must look first to the decisions of the United States Supreme Court and then to the case law of this circuit.

Fred Halcomb, Jr. v. Tamarra Ravenell

992 F.3d 316 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 30, 2021

Determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity “typically involves two inquiries: (1) whether the plaintiff has established the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly … Here, we conclude that even assuming a violation of Appellee’s due process rights, Appellant is entitled to qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Novitsky v. City of Aurora

491 F.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 5, 2007

Novitsky’s first claim, the district court concluded the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because, on June 9, 2001, they did not violate clearly established law by removing M r. … W e therefore turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, asking whether Officer W ortham violated clearly established law. 2.