Case law

White v. Taylor

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

ground of qualified immunity. … qualified immunity.

Cristo v. Evangelidis

90 Mass. App. Ct. 585 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 28, 2016

[Q]ualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability for money damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional … the defendant's position would understand that his conduct violated those clearly established rights.

Clark v. Coleman

335 F. Supp. 3d 818 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Aug 14, 2018

Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Mullenix v. … Dec. 20, 2006) (holding that calling a police officer an "asshole" and an "Opie-Taylor-looking motherfucker" was protected speech, but finding qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established in 2003).

Neil Morgan v. Fairfield Cty., Ohio

903 F.3d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 6, 2018

The district court was correct to conclude that the law was not clearly established, so that the claims against the individual officers failed on qualified immunity grounds. … Specifically, the court held, qualified immunity was appropriate because even if intruding onto the curtilage violated the Fourth Amendment, it was not clearly established that such an action was a violation at the time of

Wilson v. Strong

156 F.3d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 28, 1998

General Qualified Immunity Principles Qualified immunity shields a § 1983 defendant from liability for harms arising from her discretionary acts, so long as her acts do not violate any clearly established statutory … Second, "[i]n this circuit, the law can be "clearly established' for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Gerald Johnson v. Mike Moody

903 F.3d 766 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 10, 2018

To defeat a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must put forth facts showing that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and that the right was clearly established at the … Callahan expressly authorized, that Moody and Mathis were entitled to qualified immunity from the Count I claims, not simply because the law was not clearly established, but because their conduct in investigating did not

Altovese Williams v. City of Burlington, Iowa

27 F.4th 1346 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 9, 2022

Chiprez appeals the denial of qualified immunity. This court affirms. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

DONALD M v. Matava

668 F. Supp. 703 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 30, 1987

QUALIFIED AND ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY 1. … to qualified immunity.

Ingram v. Cooper

163 F. Supp. 3d 1133 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 18, 2016

and the law supporting plaintiffs claims was. not clearly established. … For the purpose of qualified immunity, it is clearly established that discrimination against a person because of his or her race would be a clearly established violation of the person’s constitutional *1140 rights.

Dr. Lana Foster v. Shannon King

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 18, 2026

But the second question, whether the law is clearly established, presents a set of doctrinal challenges unique to qualified immunity. … Accordingly, we address only step two of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the alleged conduct violated clearly established law.

Chana Wiley v. City of Columbus

36 F.4th 661 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 2, 2022

The qualified immunity question turns on “(1) whether the officer violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment; and (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of … “When federal qualified immunity and Ohio state-law immunity under Ohio Rev.

Don Karns v. Kathleen Shanahan

879 F.3d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 11, 2018

However, as in Fields itself, this right was not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … Accordingly, although the right identified by Karns and Parker is now clearly established in this Circuit, our qualified immunity analysis in this case remains unchanged. See Brosseau v.

David B. Klein v. Paul Long, Blackman Township Police Officer Phillip Rogers, Blackman Township Police Sergeant

275 F.3d 544 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 21, 2001

Qualified Immunity In civil suits for money damages, government officials acting in their official capacity are entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … We need not reach, then, the second part of the qualified immunity analysis delineated in Saucier — whether the constitutional right violated was clearly established.

Moore v. Miami-Dade County

502 F. Supp. 2d 1224 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 18, 2007

in a constitutional violation of a clearly established right. … clearly established by case law or otherwise.

Washington v. Starke

626 F. Supp. 1149 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jan 24, 1986

The real question in this case, as in all cases involving the claim of wralified immunity, is whether the conduct of the individual defendants violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, and if so, whether … For these reasons, I conclude that there was no clearly established constitutional or statutory law restricting the individual defendants’ discretionary conduct and, hence, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified

Victor Smith v. City of Troy, Ohio

874 F.3d 938 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 1, 2017

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity and, thus, is shielded from suit under § 1983 if his conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable official would … Osting is not entitled to qualified immunity for this use of force.

Wilson v. Jean

145 F. Supp. 3d 434 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2015

The Supreme Court teaches qualified immunity protects Defendant Officers from liability “when their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights’ a reasonable official, similarly situated, .would … on video and admitted by him is not clearly established.

Root v. Loucks

District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 20, 2021

Supp. 3d 636, 664-65 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (arresting officer not entitled to qualified immunity despite officer’s testimony he merely gave arrestee a “bear hug” in light of plaintiff’s testimony that he was placed in a chokehold … Ohio 2004) (stating that an officer who “flipped [plaintiff] to the ground and choked him two times, the second time while [plaintiff] was not resisting . . . violat[ed] . . . clearly established law”).

Spann v. Indiana State of

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 20, 2022

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity “because they did not violate any right that was clearly established in July of 2020.” (ECF 83 at 1.) … “Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment turns on whether the plaintiff has both (1) alleged that the official committed acts violating a clearly established right and (2)

Patrick A. Dadd v. Anoka County

827 F.3d 749 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 30, 2016

Anoka also rests its claim for qualified immunity on the argument that Dadd’s right to treatment in this particular situation was not clearly established, the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Even if a complaint fairly alleges a violation of a constitutional right, an official is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity if that right was not clearly established at the time of the violation.