Case law

Edward S., Administrator of the Estates of T.S. and A.K., Edward S. and Rachel K., Individually and as Next Friends of J.K. v. Raleigh County Housing Authority

West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 8, 2023

So, RCHA argued, it was immune from Edward S.’s negligence claims because he had not established that any alleged failing in its inspection process violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or laws of … to violations of clearly established rights or laws.

Andrea Miller v. Woodston Maddox

866 F.3d 386 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 3, 2017

Lastly, we address Maddox’s argument that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions unless (1) the plaintiff has established a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right at issue was clearly established at time of the incident

Mallak v. City of Baxter

823 F.3d 441 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 19, 2016

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability unless his conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … A defendant denied summary judgment based on qualified immunity may appeal the “purely legal issue” of “whether the facts alleged ... support a claim of violation of clearly established law.”

Mason-Funk v. City of Neenah

895 F.3d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 10, 2018

Even if the officers had used unreasonable force, the court concluded they were entitled to qualified immunity because the officers did not violate a clearly established right. Id. at 1016-22 . … "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." Kisela v.

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.”

Shadmani v. Barnes

District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 11, 2024

that they violated a clearly established constitutional right. … the qualified immunity privilege, even in the absence of case law.

Hale v. Duvall

268 F. Supp. 3d 1161 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jul 27, 2017

P. 12(b)(6) based on the defense of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of 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

Safar v. Tingle

178 F. Supp. 3d 338 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 4, 2016

As the Fourth Circuit has explained, “to escape dismissal of a complaint on qualified immunity grounds, a plaintiff must (1) allege a violation of a right (2) that is clearly established at the time of the violation.” … This is a flaw in the qualified immunity doctrine; because cases resolved on the basis of qualified immunity — or, as here, on the basis of absolute immunity— are often resolved without reaching the merits, no clearly established

McCormick v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs

28 Kan. App. 2d 744 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Mar 30, 2001

light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken. … The holding in Kalina leaves no doubt it was clearly established. Thereafter, a prosecutor is to be charged with knowledge that such an act was unreasonable. Long, therefore, is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Rachel v. City of Mobile

112 F. Supp. 3d 1263 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Jun 5, 2015

Qualified Immunity. … Moreover, “[t]he law cannot be .established by dieta[, which] is particularly unhelpful in qualified immunity cases where we seek to identify clearly established law.” Santamorena v.

Tayvin Galanakis v. City of Newton, Iowa

134 F.4th 998 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 17, 2025

“An official is not entitled to qualified immunity if (1) the plaintiff demonstrates the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) that right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the official’s alleged wrongdoing.” … Independent of federal qualified immunity, Iowa officers enjoy statutory immunity where “[t]he right . . . secured by law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation, or at the time of the alleged deprivation

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.

Atkinson v. Taylor

316 F.3d 257 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 21, 2003

We cannot conclude that appellants are entitled to qualified immunity. Atkinson has fulfilled Sauciers first prong for denying qualified immunity by alleging a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Milhouse clearly established that such retaliatory actions, if proven, are not legal. Thus, Saucier’s second prong is satisfied and appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity. C.

William Meyers, Sr. v. Baltimore County, Maryland

713 F.3d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 1, 2013

Ryan’s clearly established constitutional rights. … We repeatedly have held that it is not required that a right violated already have been recognized by a court in a specific context before such right may be held "clearly established" for purposes of qualified immunity.

Hudson v. Hall

231 F.3d 1289 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 30, 2000

violated clearly established law." … clearly established law.

Walter Franklin, II v. Lucas Peterson

878 F.3d 631 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 26, 2017

DISCUSSION This is an appeal from the denial of qualified immunity as to Officers Peterson and Meath, a doctrine that “shields a government official from liability unless his conduct violates ’clearly established statutory … In an interlocutory appeal from an order denying qualified immunity, we have authority to decide the purely legal issue of whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff are a violation of clearly established law.

Barker v. Goodrich

649 F.3d 428 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2011

On January 10, 2010, the magistrate judge granted summary judgment to all Defendants on the basis of qualified immunity, finding that the evidence established a constitutional violation, but the right at issue was not clearly … Accordingly, the constitutional right was clearly established and we REVERSE the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to all Defendants. III.

Wojcik v. Town of North Smithfield

874 F. Supp. 508 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Jan 4, 1995

Second, the RCC defendants argue that they enjoy qualified immunity from plaintiffs’ cause of action because plaintiffs have not alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Unlike state actors or private individuals charged with a deprivation of rights, a municipality is not entitled to claim qualified immunity, even for violation of rights that are not clearly established. Leatherman v.

Smith v. Cochran

339 F.3d 1205 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 12, 2003

In addition, the court denied summary judgment on Cochran’s claim of qualified immunity because it found that the constitutional violation Smith alleged was clearly established at the time of the claimed violation. … Because Cochran argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity under the plaintiff’s version of the facts, focusing on the legal issue whether the constitutional right he allegedly violated was clearly established, we

Sydney Rieman v. Gloria Vasquez

96 F.4th 1085 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 5, 2024

The panel held that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity from suit for failing to provide notice of the hearing. Ms. Rieman had a due process right to such notice and that right was clearly established. … immunity because they did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights.