Case law

Brown v. Truelove

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 26, 2020

“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. … In determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, courts examine (1) whether “the official violated a statutory or constitutional right,” and (2) whether “the right was ‘clearly established’ at the

Hereford v. Warren

536 F.3d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 7, 2008

The district court granted ha-beas relief after concluding that the state court’s holding represented an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C … That conclusion, however, misapprehends controlling law for AEDPA purposes; the language found in Minsky is not a Supreme Court holding that reflects clearly established federal law.

Pooler v. Hempstead Police Department

897 F. Supp. 2d 12 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 14, 2012

that preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. 1. … Tollaksen, 257 Fed.Appx. 400, 401 (2d Cir.2007) (explaining that government officers “are protected by qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established law, or it was objectively reasonable for them

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.

Penate v. Hanchett

944 F.3d 358 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 13, 2019

This appeal raises issues under the clearly established law prong of the qualified immunity test for supervisory state officials. … Hanchett does not separately argue that any ruling on our part on the clearly established prong of qualified immunity is "inextricably intertwined," and so he has waived such argument. See United States v.

Flanagan v. Scearce

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Aug 23, 2021

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 would have … clearly established law”); Graves v.

Montoya v. Vigil

898 F.3d 1056 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 7, 2018

in the proceedings against him, he only argues the statements’ use at trial violated his clearly established Fifth Amendment rights. … these issues, we find it unnecessary to address whether the Detectives’ interrogation tactics were actually coercive under clearly established law

Richardson v. Chevrefils

131 N.H. 227 · Supreme Court of New Hampshire · Dec 12, 1988

Fitzgerald, supra at 818 , a defendant is entitled to immunity unless his actions violated “legal norms . . . clearly established at the time of the challenged actions,” Mitchell v. … Nonetheless, inquiries into immunity and into the sufficiency of a complaint obviously overlap considerably, and a complaint that clearly fails to state a claim need hardly be the subject of a subtle enquiry into qualified

Reece v. Groose

60 F.3d 487 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 20, 1995

was clearly established. 9 On the other side of the line is Anderson v. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil lawsuits when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v.

Royal Crown Day Care LLC v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

746 F.3d 538 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 19, 2014

Defendants’ Qualified Immunity Defense “The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if they can establish either that (1) ‘a constitutional right was [not] violated’ or (2) ‘the right was [not] clearly established.’ … established.

City of Akron v. Brown

122 N.E.3d 672 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 2018

(Emphasis added.) {¶ 8} The plain language of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b) clearly provides qualified individuals with immunity for a minor drug possession offense pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2925. … Brown had qualified for immunity and, consequently, dismissal of a charge for minor drug possession, any allied offenses would not "merge" for that purpose and there would be no grounds to extend immunity or dismiss any charges

Williams v. Pate

463 S.W.3d 734 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 20, 2015

Appellees filed an answer asserting the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … of qualified immunity.

Robert Andrews v. Hickman County, Tennessee

700 F.3d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 3, 2012

Thus, qualified immunity applies “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 (citing Anderson v. … The next step in the qualified immunity analysis requires us to ask whether the right was clearly established at the time of the officer’s conduct.

Taylor v. LeBlanc

60 F.4th 246 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 14, 2023

Now Secretary LeBlanc appeals the denial of qualified immunity arguing, inter alia, that his conduct wasn’t objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … The right to timely release is clearly established.

Allen v. Kevin Taylor

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 21, 2025

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … For now, the officers cannot avail themselves of qualified immunity because Allen has identified a clearly established right to be free from unlawful custody as part of a prosecution.

Student Services for Lesbians/Gays & Friends v. Texas Tech University

635 F. Supp. 776 · District Court, N.D. Texas · May 28, 1986

Qualified Immunity For Defendants Not Given Absolute Immunity First, this defense of qualified immunity is asserted principally on behalf of those defendants who were sued in an individual capacity. … The Law as to the Plaintiff Organization Was Clearly Established In Some Circuits The defense of qualified immunity is not an absolute bar to damages against persons who are sued also in their individual capacity.

James P. Crocker v. Deputy Sheriff Steven Eric Beatty

995 F.3d 1232 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 20, 2021

The district court held that Beatty was entitled to qualified immunity because the law underlying Crocker’s First Amendment claim wasn’t clearly established. We agree. … In my view, Smith clearly establishes that Mr. Crocker had a right to photograph the accident scene and I would therefore reverse the grant of qualified immunity to Deputy Beatty on this claim.

Byrd v. Cavenaugh

269 Ga. App. 612 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Sep 15, 2004

City of Albany. 9 “(T)he test for determining whether a defendant is protected from suit by the doctrine of qualified immunity is the objective reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct as measured by reference to clearly … In determining whether [Cavenaugh] clearly violated plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights, and thus, whether or not he is entitled to qualified immunity, however, we must examine his actions in light of the Fourth *615 Amendment

City of Harlingen v. Vega

951 S.W.2d 25 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Jul 10, 1997

claims of qualified immunity in section 1983 cases.” … Flores and Manning focus their arguments on the objective reasonableness of their actions to establish their entitlement to qualified immunity.

Tofano v. Reidel

61 F. Supp. 2d 289 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 11, 1999

To this effect, government officials, performing discretionary functions, are afforded qualified immunity from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Having found the conduct of the officers to be objectively reasonable, plaintiff has not alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. Cf.