Case law

Davdrin Goffin v. Robbie Ashcraft

977 F.3d 687 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 15, 2020

Officer Ashcraft is entitled to qualified immunity if her conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Police officers are not entitled to qualified immunity if “(1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.”

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.

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.

Huber v. North Carolina State University

163 N.C. App. 638 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 20, 2004

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials per *645 forming discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … We must therefore determine whether Plaintiff’s right to privacy was clearly established at the time.

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).

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

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.

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.

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

Chad J. Alvarado v. Jon E. Litscher, Secretary, Jane Gamble, B. McCreedy

267 F.3d 648 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 28, 2001

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary functions so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To overcome a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must first allege the deprivation of an actual constitutional right, and second, show that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

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

Dennis Mize v. S. Tseng

703 F. App'x 547 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 20, 2017

The district court properly dismissed Mize’s Eighth Amendment claim on the basis of qualified immunity because defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly established law. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the conduct at issue violated a clearly established constitutional right); Hope v.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Charles Johnson, Jr. v. City of Atlanta

107 F.4th 1292 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 12, 2024

To show that qualified immunity is not appropriate, “the plaintiff must establish two things: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) that constitutional right was ‘clearly established … immunity, and we do not address the second prong—whether the law was clearly established. 7 C.