Case law

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.

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.

Maras v. City of Brainerd

502 N.W.2d 69 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jun 22, 1993

Qualified Immunity Appellants claim that, even if the trustee’s claims are actionable under section 1983, Pfingsten is entitled to qualified immunity against those claims. … The threshold question is whether Peterson had a clearly established right which Pfingsten violated. We conclude that he did.

Zwalesky v. Manistee County

749 F. Supp. 815 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Aug 16, 1990

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY All of the individual defendants that had contact with the decedent on the day of his death assert that they are immune from suit in the present action due to the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Although qualified immunity is somewhat akin to an affirmative defense, the defendant does not bear the burden of establishing that his alleged conduct did not violate clearly established law. Dominque v.

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)).

IN RE: DISCIPLINE OF CHRISTOPHER R. ARABIA

495 P.3d 1103 · Nevada Supreme Court · Sep 23, 2021

immunity and the State Bar lacked jurisdiction over him.2 Qualified immunity does not apply to attorney disciplinary proceedings Arabia contends that he cannot be professionally disciplined because his actions … are entitled to protection under the qualified immunity doctrine, and thus, this matter must be dismissed.

Miller v. IDAHO STATE PATROL

150 Idaho 856 · Idaho Supreme Court · May 18, 2011

If a government official violates the claimant’s constitutional rights, qualified immunity “generally turns on the objective reasonableness of the action assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established … qualified-immunity inquiry instead.

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.”).

Tucker v. Resha

648 So. 2d 1187 · Supreme Court of Florida · Nov 10, 1994

Her petition relied in large measure on the established federal appellate mechanism for interlocutory review of orders denying summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity. [2] The district court determined that there … Under the qualified immunity doctrine, "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Anne Powers v. John T. Lightner, D/B/A Lightner Auto Sales, Third-Party v. Barry Jones and Bruce White, Third-Party

752 F.2d 1251 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 16, 1985

Accordingly, the Court dropped the subjective component and announced that qualified immunity is to be judged by a simple objective standard: whether the acts of the official violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional … But when clearly established rights are involved, qualified immunity does not protect against trial: [W]e see no substantial basis for holding ... that executive officers generally may with impunity discharge their duties

White v. Taylor

677 F. Supp. 882 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Jan 13, 1988

ground of qualified immunity. … qualified immunity.

Sean G. Duffy v. Chase Riveland, Secretary of Washington State Department of Corrections, James Spalding, Director, Kenneth Ducharme, Superintendent, John Ahlsted, Corrections Sergeant, Peggy Williams, Clerk/typist, Jerry Sorenson, Corrections Officer, Frances Linder, Corrections Officer, Sean G. Duffy v. Craig Yost, Classification Counselor, William Woodly, Corrections Unit Supervisor, David Karton, Corrections Sergeant, Linda Willenberg, Corrections Program Manager, Kenneth Ducharme, Superintendent

98 F.3d 447 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 11, 1996

The Supreme Court has established a three-part test for Article III standing. … immunity.

Swope v. Krischer

783 So. 2d 1164 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 18, 2001

In discussing the requirement that the law be clearly established, the court stated: 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 … The complaint does not show a violation of a clearly established right by these defendants. Therefore, qualified immunity protects appellees.

Kirk Vester v. Daniel Hallock

864 F.3d 884 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 25, 2017

“We analyze qualified immunity in two steps: (1) whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged . . . make out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time … However, as the district court correctly noted, “‘Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if clearly established law’ can be defined at such a ‘high level of generality.’” See City & Cty. of S.F., Calif. v.

Marglli Gallego v. Ivette Perez

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 11, 2024

DISCUSSION “Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time … “[I]f a plaintiff cannot show that the law at issue was clearly established under the first . . . method, that usually means qualified immunity is appropriate.” King v.

Derrick Dutton v. Sheryl Hayes-Pupko

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 7, 2008

He asserted that Hayes-Pupko had to overcome his assertion of qualified immunity by proving that he (1) violated her clearly established rights and (2) acted unreasonably or in bad faith in doing so. … Discussion "A government official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Ford v. Retter

840 F. Supp. 489 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 6, 1993

The deputies are clearly entitled to qualified immunity.”); Jones v. City of Upper Arlington, 986 F.2d 1421 (6th Cir.1993); Walton v. City of Southfield, 995 F.2d 1331 (6th Cir.1993). … It also seems that once you have determined the need for the defense of [qualified immunity], ... as a matter of law ... the officer has acted unreasonably ... and has violated clearly established law. Yates v.

Moody v. Michigan Gaming Control Board

202 F. Supp. 3d 756 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 15, 2016

Therefore, because a reasonable officer would have believed his actions to be lawful, the rights at issue were not clearly established. Accordingly, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on these claims. C. … Finally, the Defendants argue that they are still entitled to qualified immunity because any violation did not involve a clearly established right that a reasonable person would have known. Dkt. No. 144 at 30-31 (Pg.

Camilo-Robles v. Hoyos

151 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 22, 1998

When a supervisor seeks qualified immunity in a section 1983 action, the "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is satisfied when (1) the subordinate's actions violated a clearly established constitutional … Responding to these allegations, each defendant claims qualified immunity and, because both the rights in question and each defendant's susceptibility to supervisory liability are clearly established, these qualified immunity

Kapinski v. City of Albuquerque

964 F.3d 900 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 6, 2020

In response, Detective Juarez moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, arguing that omitting the video footage did not transgress any clearly established law. … clearly established.”