Case law

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.

Ewy v. Sturtevant

962 P.2d 991 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 1998

conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … In determining the applicability of qualified immunity, the court need not decide whether specific actions of the officials were unconstitutional, but merely whether the conduct was so clearly unconstitutional that any reasonable

ND Indoor RV Park v. State

2025 ND 92 · North Dakota Supreme Court · May 8, 2025

Wishnatsky, at 401. [¶18] Wagendorf and Nelson are protected by qualified immunity unless the Park “pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly … A constitutional right is “clearly established” if the “contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.

Turner v. Perry

278 S.W.3d 806 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Feb 26, 2009

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects governmental officials performing discretionary functions frpm suit if their actions were objectively reasonable in the light of then clearly-established law. Anderson v. … Appellants contend that they nevertheless are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established right protecting Perry’s speech.

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.

McGrew v. Duncan

333 F. Supp. 3d 730 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 10, 2018

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity where their actions do not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Greene v. … This right was "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes at the time McGrew was placed in handcuffs. Id. (citation omitted).

Brooks v. City of West Point

18 F. Supp. 3d 790 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · May 1, 2014

a qualified immunity defense with equal specificity.” … “[A] court addressing a claim of qualified immunity must determine first whether the plaintiff has adduced facts sufficient to establish a constitutional or statutory violation.” Collier v.

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

Hills v. Comwlth of KY

457 F.3d 583 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 9, 2006

The district court’s denial of qualified immunity in this case was based on the conclusion that “[u]nder the clearly established Kentucky law setting forth Mr. … Siddiqui qualified immunity Dr.

Rosado v. Zayas

629 F. Supp. 911 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 31, 1986

Defendant’s request for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity is likewise DENIED. … A Section 1983 defendant claiming qualified or good faith immunity has the burden to prove that the law was not clearly established at the time of plaintiff’s alleged injuries, or that there exist extraordinary circumstances

Wright, Robert v. Funk

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Jul 23, 2020

Even if Johnson isn’t controlling, it is strong evidence that it wasn’t clearly established in December 2018 that defendants’ conduct violated the Eighth Amendment. So defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Haessig, 788 F.3d 662, 666 (7th Cir. 2015) (“The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Mildred Robinson v. Daniel Arrugueta

415 F.3d 1252 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 7, 2005

The court found, however, that under the second step the right violated was not clearly established and thus Arrugueta was entitled to qualified immunity. … established, and thus, Arrugueta is entitled to qualified immunity under this step as well.

People of Michigan v. Richard Lee Hartwick

Michigan Supreme Court · Jul 27, 2015

not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. … required to establish immunity.

Atteberry v. Nocona General Hospital

430 F.3d 245 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 3, 2005

clearly established law.” … Objectively Unreasonable “To be ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity, ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates

Barham, Jeffrey v. Ramsey, Charles H.

434 F.3d 565 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 13, 2006

established constitutional rights, thus stripping appellants of any qualified immunity. … Assistant Chief Newsham’s Claim to Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

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

Pacherille v. Burns

30 F. Supp. 3d 159 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 3, 2014

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity > generally protects governmental officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … However, even if the constitutional privileges “are so clearly defined that a reasonable public official would know that his actions might violate those rights, qualified ... immunity might still be available ... if it was

Konop v. Northwestern School District

26 F. Supp. 2d 1189 · District Court, D. South Dakota · Nov 10, 1998

Qualified immunity protects state actors from civil liability when ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable *1196 person would have known.’ … qualified immunity.

Amato v. City of Richmond

875 F. Supp. 1124 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Dec 15, 1994

Qualified immunity is also appropriate because it is not clearly established how the law would apply to Hosiek’s conduct. He spoke with the Chief Magistrate after another magistrate had denied Acola a warrant. … Hosick’s decisions in this grey area are protected by the qualified immunity doctrine. Amato has cited no authority explaining what clearly established law this conduct violated.

John Dee Carruth v. Robert J. Bentley

942 F.3d 1047 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 7, 2019

Since there is no clearly established law establishing that Carruth’s alleged differential treatment violated the Equal Protection Clause, Bentley and Byrne are entitled to qualified immunity. … It is Carruth’s burden to establish that Byrne and Bentley are not entitled to qualified immunity and he has not met it.