Case law

Plummer v. Department of Corrections

305 N.J. Super. 365 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 25, 1997

reasonable, thereby entitling them to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … However, the fact that the law at issue is clearly established will not deprive these defendants from the qualified immunity defense if, in light of the specific facts known to them, they could reasonably believe that probable

Weinstein v. City of North Bay Village

977 F. Supp. 2d 1271 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 26, 2013

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials acting within their discretionary authority are immune from suit unless the official’s conduct ‘violates clearly established federal statutory or constitutional … The Alleged Constitutional Violations Were Clearly Established For Weinstein to avoid qualified immunity, he must allege that Schwartz violated a clearly established law. See Keating, 598 F.3d at 762 .

Peterson v. Bernardi

719 F. Supp. 2d 419 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 15, 2010

Clearly Established Second, was the constitutional right at issue clearly established? … If ever an area of law were not “clearly established”, this area was not. See Brandt v.

Strickland v. City of Crenshaw

114 F. Supp. 3d 400 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jul 20, 2015

in qualified immunity cases. … Thus, plaintiffs are clearly unable to survive a qualified immunity defense with regard to any property damage claims. .

Bedinghaus v. Modern Graphic Arts

15 F.3d 1027 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 9, 1994

Clearly, “the company” refers to the Times and its affiliates, not to some entity that happens to purchase the assets of one of the affiliates. We see no ambiguity in the crucial terms. … As the First Circuit said in Bellino: Federal courts have established no hard and fast rule that an individual must suffer a period of unemployment to qualify for severance benefits under ERISA.

Reece v. Groose

60 F.3d 487 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 20, 1995

was clearly established. … We also held that Anderson was not entitled to qualified immunity, because the right allegedly violated, freedom from unreasonable searches, was clearly established.

Sinaloa Lake Owners Ass'n v. City of Simi Valley

70 F.3d 1095 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 30, 1995

While the right to due process is “clearly established” by the Due Process Clause, this level of generality was not intended to satisfy the qualified immunity standard. … that the law was clearly established, Doody was nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because “a reasonable dam safety engineering official, similarly situated, could have believed breaching the dam was lawful.”

Patsy Talley v. Dale Folwell

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 4, 2025

established, and thus defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.” … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the

Blair Hays v. J. Gastelo

District Court, C.D. California · May 4, 2021

Qualified Immunity 20 Courts recognize qualified immunity “to balance competing values: not only the 21] importance of a damages remedy to protect the rights of citizens . . . but also ‘the need to protect … As 28 such, “[o]nce the official pleads qualified immunity, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove two elements: (1) that the right was violated; and (2) that the right was clearly established at the 2| time

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.

Rainey v. Hartness

339 Ark. 293 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 2, 1999

Qualified Immunity — Federal Law Generally, government officials performing discretionary functions are granted a qualified immunity from suit under section 1983 and are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar … Courts evaluating a claim of immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and, if so, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

Hernandez v. Wells

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 20, 2022

immunity on summary judgment because his qualified immunity turned on a dispute of fact). … “Falsifying facts to establish probable cause is clearly unconstitutional and has been ‘clearly established’ long before [Hernandez’s] arrest.” Mead v. McKeithen, 571 F. App’x 788, 792 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam).

Dana West v. Susan Murphy

771 F.3d 209 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 14, 2014

Determining whether qualified immunity applies involves a two-prong inquiry: “whether the facts ... make out a violation of a constitutional right” and “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of … This temporal element inheres in qualified immunity because the inquiry into “clearly established law” is tethered to the need for notice.

Meals v. City of Memphis, Tennessee

493 F.3d 720 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 11, 2007

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … If the plaintiff fails to establish any one of these elements, qualified immunity must be granted. Radvansky v.

Hannah David v. Gina Kaulukukui

38 F.4th 792 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 2022

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages unless their conduct “violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Williamson v. … To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, the court asks “(1) whether the [official’s] conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the

Jeffrey Queen v. City of Bowling Green

956 F.3d 893 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 22, 2020

“Clearly established” means that the “factual context of the occurrence must not exemplify a ‘legally uncertain environment’ in which qualified official immunity is appropriate.” Id. … Kentucky’s “clearly established” requirement tracks the same standards used to determine if a statutory or constitutional right is “clearly established” for purposes of determining whether an officer has federal qualified

Edmiston v. City Of Port Angeles

360 F. Supp. 3d 1147 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 21, 2018

Therefore, in the absence of authority demonstrating that the right was clearly established, Officer Brusseau is entitled to qualified immunity. … Nor can Edmiston negate that Officer Brusseau is entitled to qualified immunity on the search issue, if a search indeed occurred, in the absence of clearly established law.

Hooks v. Warren, City of

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 30, 2024

Of course, qualified immunity would protect officers if their conduct did not violate clearly established rights. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009). … Though there are some differences between qualified immunity and Michigan statutory governmental immunity—qualified immunity uses an objective standard to evaluate reasonableness, for instance, while Michigan

Gregory Baldwin v. City of Estherville, Iowa Matt Reineke, Individually and in His Official Capacity as an Officer of the Estherville Police Department and Matt Hellickson, Individually and in His Official Capacity as an Officer of the Estherville Police Department

915 N.W.2d 259 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jun 29, 2018

to believe that their actions would not violate a clearly established right of the plaintiff's under the circumstances." 284 Conn. 502 , 935 A.2d 126 , 144 (2007). … Qualified immunity would be available "if the defendant show[ed] that the state constitutional right alleged to have been violated was not clearly established." Id. at 1094 .

Osborne v. Vincent

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 11, 2025

violated a clearly established constitutional right. … Pauly, 580 U.S. 73, 78-79 (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.”)