Case law

Jones v. Preuit & Mauldin

851 F.2d 1321 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 10, 1988

case are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity The district court found that P & M acted in good faith reliance upon laws which were not clearly unconstitutional.

Mitchell v. Stewart

26 F. Supp. 3d 1322 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jun 12, 2014

Plaintiffs thus “bear the burden of establishing that qualified immunity is not appropriate.” Id. … To lose qualified immunity, an officer must violate clearly established law. For a right to be clearly established, the constitutional question must be “beyond debate.” Stanton v.

Jackson Ex Rel. Jackson v. Nix

477 F. Supp. 2d 918 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jan 23, 2007

Qualified immunity Defendants assert they are protected by qualified immunity against the claims brought against them by the minor Plaintiff. … The Motion will be DENIED IN PART on the issue of qualified immunity so that Plaintiff Keely Jackson may have an opportunity to plead, if she can, specific factual allegations underlying any clearly-established constitutional

Paul Montemuro v. Jim Thorpe Area School District

99 F.4th 639 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 1, 2024

The defendant Board members and District (collectively, the “Defendants”) asserted 2 qualified immunity, but the District Court held that Montemuro had a clearly established property right … A Magistrate Judge recommended that the District Court deny the motion to dismiss for qualified immunity because Montemuro had a “clearly established” property right and was fired without due process. (J.A. at 26.)

Smith v. Coughlin

727 F. Supp. 834 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 28, 1989

The remainder of this case must nevertheless be disposed of on qualified immunity grounds. 7 State officials are immune from suits for damages 8 alleging constitutional violations if it was not clearly established at the … The court further held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the officials had not violated clearly established law, citing three reasons: (1) the defendant prison officials could reasonably have

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.

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

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.

Wilson v. Montano

715 F.3d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 3, 2013

Appellants claim they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Appellants nonetheless argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established law delineating which of them had the obligation to provide Wilson with a probable cause hearing.

Deanna Copeland v. Lucas Wicks

468 S.W.3d 886 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 21, 2015

Detective moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. In sustaining the motion, the trial court found there was no dispute as to the material facts and Detective was entitled to qualified immunity. … Law enforcement officers are not entitled to qualified immunity, however, if their actions violate a clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known at the time of the alleged violation.

Griffin Industries, Inc. v. Irvin

496 F.3d 1189 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 21, 2007

If, however, the official violated the law but his conduct was not clearly established as unlawful, the court must grant him qualified immunity. McClish, 483 F.3d at 1249. … Only when the official violated the law and the illegality of his conduct was clearly established must the court deny him the protection of qualified immunity. See Vinyard v.

Thomas v. Independence Township

463 F.3d 285 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 14, 2006

plaintiff complains violated clearly established law." … Thus, "[u]nless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery."

Norman v. Schuetzle

585 F.3d 1097 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 9, 2009

Where “the unlawfulness of the officers’ conduct ... was not clearly established, [the officers] are entitled to qualified immunity.” Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 823 . … In analyzing a claim of qualified immunity, we therefore look at the specific actions of the officer to determine whether it was clearly established that his actions violated the inmate’s rights.

Foster v. Raspberry

652 F. Supp. 2d 1342 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jul 29, 2009

A right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes in one of three ways: (1) “case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishes] the constitutional right;” (2) “a broad statement of principle within … “In this circuit, the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

McMurry v. Weaver

142 F.4th 292 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 27, 2025

Based on the facts supported by the summary judgment record, the McMurrys have established that Weaver’s search was a constitutional violation of clearly established law that defeats qualified immunity. … Romero, 937 F.3d at 522–23 (denying qualified immunity on procedural due process claim in part because Gates and Wernecke clearly established the violation); Gates, 537 F.3d at 435; Wernecke, 591 F.3d at 391 n.7.

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.

Zahra v. Town Of Southold

48 F.3d 674 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 21, 1995

See Natale, 927 F.2d at 105 ("The threshold issue in determining the applicability of [the] qualified immunity defense is whether [the plaintiffs] had a 'clearly established right' to the permits at issue."); see also Amsden … th[at] 'clearly established' right[ ]."

Batiste v. City of Beaumont

421 F. Supp. 2d 1000 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 10, 2006

in reference to clearly-established law. … Consequently, the court must answer the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis (has plaintiff alleged violation of a clearly established federal right?) in the negative. As such, Lt.

Sanders v. District of Columbia

522 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 8, 2007

Qualified immunity “shields State officials from liability for their discretionary functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … step of the qualified immunity analysis.

Siegert v. Gilley

500 U.S. 226 · Supreme Court of the United States · May 23, 1991

Once a defendant pleads a defense of qualified immunity, “[o]n summary judgment, the judge appropriately may determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action … This case demonstrates the desirability of this approach to a claim of immunity, for Siegert failed not only to allege the violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of Gilley’s actions,