Case law

Denise Coley v. Lucas County, Ohio

799 F.3d 530 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 21, 2015

Gray’s argument that his actions did not violate clearly established law thus also fails. 2. … At the time of the events alleged in the complaint, those rights were clearly established.

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.

Rogers v. Jarrett

63 F.4th 971 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 30, 2023

conduct is clearly established.”22 It just isn’t enough to identify a right as “a broad general proposition.”23 The district court did not address qualified immunity’s second step. … Griffin27 supports that Jarrett and Bridges violated clearly established law.

Flying Dog Brewery, LLLP v. Michigan Liquor Control Commission

870 F. Supp. 2d 477 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jun 28, 2012

clearly established constitutional rights. … Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the Commissioners violated any “clearly established law,” and qualified immunity therefore applies.

Doyle v. Lehi City

723 Utah Adv. Rep. 7 · Court of Appeals of Utah · Dec 6, 2012

“Qualified immunity shields [government] officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … Accordingly, we address only the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test and need not decide whether Lehi City officials violated the right alleged by Doyle.3 ¶23 “A Government official’s conduct violates

Eastland County Cooperative Dispatch v. Poyner

64 S.W.3d 182 · Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) · Jan 10, 2002

The motions for summary judgment implicated the doctrines of sovereign immunity, official immunity, and qualified immunity. … Was that general prohibition the source for clearly established law which the officers violated in this case?

Boston v. Suffolk Cnty.

326 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 9, 2018

certainly circumstances where an intoxicated person's statement that he or she does not need medical treatment should not be honored because it is inconsistent with other objective facts indicating that hospitalization is clearly … Plaintiff introduced, through deposition testimony, that Rangers Sokol and Paterson had never received any training from Smithtown on how to identify drugs; how drugs affect people; how to deal with individuals who are clearly

Barnthouse v. City of Edmond

74 O.B.A.J. 1297 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 22, 2003

Material issues of fact for a jury exist as to: (1) whether Cochran violated Appellants' clearly established constitutional rights for purposes of his individual qualified immunity defense to the § 1988 claim; and (@)whether … Whether Cochran is entitled to qualified immunity where his conduct violated Appellants' right to due process (a constitutional right), and that right was violated by Cochran when it was clearly established at the time of

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.

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.

Sawyer v. Coleman

245 Ga. App. 37 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jul 12, 2000

This requirement that plaintiff show a clearly established right is a strenuous one: 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 … In establishing that a right is clearly established so as to overcome a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must rely upon specific, supporting case law: General propositions have little to do with the concept of qualified

McClelland v. Katy Indep Sch Dist

63 F.4th 996 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 31, 2023

Whether McClelland’s free speech rights were clearly established “A Government official’s conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time of the challenged conduct, ‘[t]he contours … established so as to defeat qualified immunity for Hull. 2.

George Nicholas Parsons v. Wiley Tyler Raines and Calhoun County Commission

Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia · May 28, 2025

Generally stated, qualified immunity shields a government official performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when the official’s conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional … Like the circuit court, we see no facts in the petitioner’s complaint demonstrating how the deputy violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Long v. Norris

929 F.2d 1111 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 3, 1991

Thus, we venture once more into the labyrinth of deciding what makes a right “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity. In Mitchell v. … established at the time of the searches for purposes of qualified immunity.

Talley v. Brentwood Union Free School District

728 F. Supp. 2d 226 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 4, 2010

Qualified Immunity in General “Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … “[E]ven 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 if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him at

Kirstin Johnson v. Kierstie Barr

79 F.4th 996 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 6, 2023

the law did not clearly establish that probable cause was lacking. … law did not clearly establish that probable cause was lacking.

Jiang v. Porter

156 F. Supp. 3d 996 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Dec 28, 2015

“[Qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Clarke, 45 F.3d 1253, 1255 (8th Cir.1995) (stating that qualified immunity “will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint”).

Ansley v. Heinrich

925 F.2d 1339 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 11, 1991

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity protects public officials, acting within the scope of their discretionary authority and under clearly established law, from insubstantial lawsuits. Butz v. … In Harlow , the Supreme Court stated that the immunity defense should fail if the law governing the official’s actions has been clearly established.

Charles Jackson v. Billy D. Stair, III

944 F.3d 704 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 3, 2019

If so, qualified immunity does not shield the officer from liability if the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation. … Officer Stair argues that qualified immunity shields him from any potential liability related to the second tasing because Jackson did not have a clearly established right to excessive force at the time.

Roy Lee Williams v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

117 F.4th 503 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 20, 2024

But that rule was newly articulated, and this Court held that qualified immunity applied because that articulation of the right was not clearly established. Id. at 553. … Thus, a letter from a federal agency cannot satisfy the ‘clearly established’ standard for qualified immunity.