Case 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.

Wyo. Guardianship Corp. v. Wyo. State Hosp.

428 P.3d 424 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Oct 11, 2018

Mullenax is entitled to qualified immunity. … Mullenax in his individual capacity. [¶ 22] We first address the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Barna v. Board of School Directors of the Panther Valley School District

143 F. Supp. 3d 205 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 2015

The Defendants are Entitled to Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Qualified immunity attaches unless the official’s conduct violated such a clearly established right. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987).

Walsh v. Taylor

263 Mich. App. 618 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2004

Taylor asserts that the undisputed facts establish his qualified immunity from plaintiffs allegations of unlawful arrest and supervisory liability. We again review de novo the circuit court’s summary disposition ruling. … In Saucier, the United States Supreme Court described as follows the standard for applying qualified immunity: A court required to rule upon the qualified immunity issue must consider, then, this threshold question: Taken

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

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.

Isaiah Taylor v. Justin Schwarzhuber

132 F.4th 480 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 17, 2025

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from monetary liability unless the law they ostensibly violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged offense. … The court awarded qualified immunity to Schwarzhuber and Rydzewski on Taylor’s initial stop and frisk claims be- cause Taylor did not provide cases showing the officers’ ac- tions violated clearly established law.

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.)

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.

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.

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

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.

Corey Airport Services, Inc. v. DeCosta

587 F.3d 1280 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 16, 2009

We conclude that these Defendants did not violate a clearly established constitutional right and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. I. … Because this is not such a case, the Defendants did not violate a clearly established constitutional right and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

Wright v. Watson

209 F. Supp. 3d 1344 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Aug 25, 2016

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

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.