Case law

Angela Johnson v. H.S. Caudill

475 F.3d 645 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 2, 2007

Because a reasonable official in Sheriff Caudill’s position would not have considered the termination to violate Johnson’s clearly established constitutional rights, however, we find Sheriff Caudill entitled to qualified … “Absent clearly established law that proscribe[s] [an official’s] specific conduct, [he] should not be subjected to suit.” Id.

Henderson v. Lewis

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 10, 2019

clearly established statutory or 23 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified 25 immunity, courts must consider (1) whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right, 26 and (2) whether that right was “clearly established

Vincent v. State Through Dept. of Corrections

468 So. 2d 1329 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 1985

Skinner examined an action brought pursuant to U.S.C. 42 § 1983, which permits government officials to raise a qualified immunity defense. … A plaintiff bringing forth a "1983 action" seeking damages for deprivation of statutory rights may overcome a defendant official's qualified immunity only by showing those rights were clearly established at the time of the

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

Manis v. Lawson

585 F.3d 839 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 16, 2009

Alternatively, even if Zemlik used excessive force, he is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct was not objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established law at the time of his actions … Therefore, Zemlik’s actions were objectively reasonable under clearly established law, and he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Kovacic v. Cuyahoga County Department of Children & Family Services

724 F.3d 687 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 31, 2013

rights were not clearly established as of March 26, 2002. … Clearly Established Rights We now turn to whether the law was clearly established on March 26, 2002, that a social worker could not seize children from their home without a warrant, exigent circumstances, or another recognized

Fancher v. Barrientos

723 F.3d 1191 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 12, 2013

Barrientos asserts he is entitled to qualified immunity because his use of deadly force was objectively reasonable and did not violate clearly established law. … Accordingly, the district court, in evaluating Barrientos’s assertion of qualified immunity, did not err in concluding Barrientos violated clearly established law when he fired shots two through seven.

Donald Gagne, Etc. v. City of Galveston, and Mike Putnal

805 F.2d 558 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 9, 1986

qualified immunity from damages for his death. … But until then, the defense of qualified immunity remains available.

Porter v. MASSARELLI

303 Ga. App. 91 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Mar 24, 2010

(a) Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual claims if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … clearly established law.

Meli v. City of Burlington, Vermont

District Court, D. Vermont · Feb 14, 2022

Torreso, 764 F.3d 217, 237 (2d Cir. 2014) (“An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used … In assessing whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court can begin with the “clearly established” inquiry first, and if it finds that a right was not clearly

Jok v. City of Burlington, Vermont

District Court, D. Vermont · Feb 14, 2022

Qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … City of Detroit, 936 F.3d 410, 425 (6th Cir. 2019) (denying qualified immunity and finding an officer’s slamming of an arrestee into a wall violated clearly established federal law); see

Williams v. Goord

142 F. Supp. 2d 416 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 24, 2001

Even if the applicable law was clearly established when the purported violation occurred, officials may still successfully assert qualified immunity if they can show that their actions were “objectively reasonable.” … Summary judgment on the basis of a claim of qualified immunity is therefore only appropriate if the court finds that the asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the evidence is such that, even when it is viewed

Siegert v. Gilley

692 F. Supp. 1406 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 30, 1988

When the Harlow Court redefined the qualified immunity defense it provided an additional basis for defendant to retain his qualified immunity even if his actions violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Our inquiry does not end with the identification of a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and the stripping away of defendant’s qualified immunity.

Shemwell v. Cannon

352 F. Supp. 3d 690 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 15, 2019

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity insulates a government official from civil damages liability when the official's actions do not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … In analyzing whether an individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the court considers whether plaintiff has alleged any violation of a clearly established right, and, if so, whether the individual defendant's

Mata v. Anderson

760 F. Supp. 2d 1068 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jan 24, 2009

Clearly Established Law. … Moreover, he does not enjoy qualified immunity, because retaliatory prosecution has been clearly established as a constitutional violation, and the allegations in the First Amended Complaint, if taken as true, establish such

Venegas v. County of Los Angeles

63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 741 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 2007

Today qualified immunity shields a public officer from an action for damages under 42 United States Code section 1983 *1242 unless the officer has violated a “clearly established” constitutional right. 24 By “clearly established … established’ at the time.”

Vann v. City of Southaven

199 F. Supp. 3d 1129 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Aug 10, 2016

As such, if a court concludes that the “clearly established” prong provides a clearer basis for deciding the qualified immunity issue, then it may consider that prong first. Pearson v. … Thus, the plaintiff in this case has done exactly what the Supreme Court stated he should not do, namely rely upon the broad Gamer standard in order to meet the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test.

Garmon v. Lumpkin County

878 F.2d 1406 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 4, 1989

The district court granted defendants' motion for directed verdict based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity. For the reasons stated below, we reverse. 2 On January 22, 1986, Mrs. … Garmon's warrant was issued without probable cause he nevertheless is shielded from liability for damages under the rule of qualified immunity.

Dorothy King, R.N. and Patricia Battle, R.N. v. Virginia Betts,, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, in her Individual Capacity

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Dec 18, 2009

As to the issue of qualified immunity, the trial court found that qualified immunity applied as “the right that was allegedly violated is not a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Further, qualified immunity would not apply if the Appellees’ conduct was unreasonable “in light of the clearly established constitutional rights.” Williams, 186 F.3d at 691.

Kane v. Williamstown Township

301 Mich. App. 582 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 2013

While this is a well-established principle, it is not absolute. In certain instances, Michigan criminal law clearly places the fact-finding function with the trial court judge. … To qualify for § 4 immunity, one must prove that he or she “(1) is a qualifying patient, (2) who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card, and (3) possesses less than 2.5 ounces of usable marijuana,” and