Case law

Tapanga Hardeman v. David Wathen

933 F.3d 816 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 12, 2019

When attempting to defeat an assertion of qualified im- munity, the burden is on the plaintiffs to show that a particu- lar right is “clearly established.” … “Because a qualified immunity defense so closely depends ‘on the facts of the case,’ a ‘complaint is generally not dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on qualified immunity grounds.’”

HIRA Educational Services Nort v. Frank Augustine

991 F.3d 180 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 15, 2021

B Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … When analyzing a qualified immunity claim we consider “(1) whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the official

KARA B. v. Dane County

198 Wis. 2d 24 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Nov 2, 1995

Merely alleging a general violation of a right that may be clearly established by the constitution or á statute is insufficient clarity of established law to justify withholding qualified immunity. … Recognizing that the defendants' qualified immunity could be pierced "only if the specific right they violated was clearly established at the time they violated it," the K.H. court decided the issue against them.

Allison v. Department Of Corrections

94 F.3d 494 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 30, 1996

See id. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 2156 (noting that a denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable so long as it turns on an issue of law; namely, "the purely legal issue [of] what law was 'clearly established' "). … immunity. 1 Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Fulwood v. Porter

639 A.2d 594 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 1994

in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … Roberts, 823 F.2d 235, 238 (8th Cir.1987) (“clearly established law” for immunity purposes is supervisor’s duty in the particular circumstances to train adequately).

Adams v. Lindsey

759 F. Supp. 795 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 14, 1991

A Clearly Established Seizure: In Anderson, supra, the Court explained that the relevant legal rule under which the qualified immunity issue is judged must be fact specific. … ’ entitlement to qualified immunity.

Curtis Stewart v. Anne Precythe

91 F.4th 944 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 30, 2024

As relevant here, the district court denied the motion for qualified immunity, concluding that “Stewart has sufficiently alleged that Precythe violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the … Finding no allegation of a constitutional violation in the complaint, we need not consider whether the right was clearly established to conclude that Precythe is entitled to qualified immunity. Kulkay v.

Goodwin v. City of Fultondale

706 So. 2d 766 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Oct 17, 1997

immunity because their actions violated clearly established constitutional law. … Clearly, the above testimony, alone, is insufficient to establish that Officer Hamilton was *Page 770 acting pursuant to a well-established municipal policy or custom.

McCarty v. Stewart

District Court, S.D. Alabama · Apr 22, 2021

Jordan’s constitutional rights in light of the clearly established law at that time”); Lee v. … White, 703 F.3d 147, 152 (5th Cir. 1983)(finding the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because he was following an order of his supervisor in arresting the plaintiff and there

Venisee v. Miami-Dade County

District Court, S.D. Florida · May 28, 2025

To qualify as clearly established, a legal principle “must be established with obvious clarity by the case law so that every objectively reasonable government official facing the circumstances would know that the official … was clearly established well before the night of the shooting in 2012.”).

Shearer v. Leuenberger

256 Neb. 566 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1999

Whether an official may prevail in his or her qualified immunity defense depends upon the “ ‘objective reasonableness of [his or her] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.’ ” Id. … Hence, our analysis turns to whether or not that right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation.

West Virginia Department of Health, Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, and Allen R. Mock, M.D. v. Dr. Patsy Cipoletti, Jr., Administrator of the Estate of June Cipoletti

West Virginia Supreme Court · May 21, 2024

whether qualified immunity applies on a “case-by-case basis.” 7 We recently summarized our qualified immunity jurisprudence as follows: Qualified immunity is an immunity from suit afforded … Va. 573, 587, 10 Respondent relies on the MPLA as the basis for his position that he has alleged the violation of a “clearly established statutory right” to defeat Petitioners’ claim to qualified immunity

Riddle v. City of Ottawa

12 Kan. App. 2d 714 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · May 20, 1988

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … If he did so act, he is entitled to qualified immunity.”

Willard Berry v. Brian Doss

900 F.3d 1017 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 20, 2018

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), and argued that, because there was no evidence they ignored Berry’s complaint, they did not violate a clearly established Eighth Amendment right and thus were entitled to qualified immunity. … Our jurisdiction to consider an appeal of an order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity is limited to “‘the purely legal issue’ of ‘whether the facts . . . alleged support a claim of violation of clearly established

Devin Ledbetter v. B. Helmers

133 F.4th 788 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 3, 2025

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity “if their actions do not ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Wilson v. … Franklin, 388 F.3d 578, 582 (8th Cir. 2004) (noting that “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity protects officials from liability from “bad guesses in gray areas” (citation omitted)).

Chadha v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital

272 Conn. 776 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Feb 15, 2005

qualified immunity pursuant to General Statutes §§ 19a-20 and 19a-17b. … In its memorandum of decision, the court concluded that the defendants were protected by qualified immunity, pursuant to §§ 19a-20 and 19a-17b, and that qualified immunity and not absolute immunity applied to the defendants

Sheldon v. City of Ambler

178 P.3d 459 · Alaska Supreme Court · Mar 14, 2008

Using the Saucier analysis, the superior court held that Jones and the City of Ambler were protected by qualified immunity because “[t]here was no clearly established law ... that would have given a reasonable officer notice … "If the law d[oes] not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate." Id. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . 12 .

Stephen Hill v. City of Fountain Valley

70 F.4th 507 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 1, 2023

In short, qualified immunity applies because the Hills have not offered any factually analogous case “clearly 16 HILL V. … Because this law was clearly established at the time of the events here, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection v. Environmental Corp. of America

720 So. 2d 273 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 16, 1998

Qualified immunity shields government actors from personal liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established rights. See Vermette v. … In light of the Environmental Trust decision, we conclude that the individual defendants here are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Lum v. Koles

314 P.3d 546 · Alaska Supreme Court · Dec 13, 2013

established’ . . . .”) … The officers’ conduct was reasonable and certainly does not violate clearly established law, unlike that of the officers in Headwaters Forest Defense v.