Case law

Stephen L. Bartlett v. Colonel C.E. Fisher Captain S.T. Davis

972 F.2d 911 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 13, 1992

Under this objective standard, public officials are entitled to qualified immunity when their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … The district court denied their qualified immunity motion because defendants’ motive in disciplining Bartlett is a disputed issue of fact and the law is “clearly established” that a public employee may not be disciplined

Timothy Taylor v. Michigan Department of Corrections, Dale E. Foltz Gwen Bogan Don Wentworth A.E. Tessmer John Doe, No. 1

14 F.3d 602 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 22, 1993

B. 8 Foltz is entitled to qualified immunity in the performance of official discretionary functions to the extent that his conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Harlow v. … I am troubled, however, on the question of qualified immunity--whether Taylor "failed to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right." See Siegert v.

Jamie Becker v. Zachary Effriechs

821 F.3d 920 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 12, 2016

to qualified immunity as a matter of law.” … to qualified immunity on this record.

White v. Busboom

901 N.W.2d 294 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Sep 15, 2017

Whether an official may prevail in his or her qualified immunity defense depends upon the objec- tive reasonableness of his or her conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law. 13. ____: ___ … Court Erred in Determining That White’s Predeprivation Due Process R ights Were Clearly Established (a) Qualified Immunity Principles [11,12] The doctrine of qualified

Ralph Harrison Benning v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections

71 F.4th 1324 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 23, 2023

The Supreme Court re- cently summarized this aspect of the qualified immunity inquiry: Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s con- duct does not violate clearly established statutory … Thus, because the law was not clearly established, we affirm the district court’s ruling that Ms. Edgar and Ms. Patterson are en- titled to qualified immunity on Mr.

Stamps Ex Rel. Estate of Stamps v. Town of Framingham

813 F.3d 27 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 5, 2016

The rules for granting qualified immunity are well established. … any Courts of Appeals . . . decline to consider district court precedent when determining if constitutional rights are clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity

Harris v. Eichbaum

642 F. Supp. 1056 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 2, 1986

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct____ By defining the limits of qualified immunity essentially … Forsyth that: “Unless 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.

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).

Abell v. Dewey

847 P.2d 36 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1993

However, certain considerations may defeat a claim of qualified immunity. … In a recent opinion involving qualified immunity, we set out the following: [T]he right the official is alleged to have violated must have been “clearly established” in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense

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.

Lee Krueger and Mary Delacour v. Don Fuhr

991 F.2d 435 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 1, 1993

The District Court’s opinion discusses only Fuhr’s defense ‘‘on the merits," and not his qualified immunity defense. … However, we take this opportunity to suggest that district courts clearly address the qualified immunity issue. 3 .

Gwinnett County v. King

218 Ga. App. 800 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Oct 4, 1995

“Government officials performing discretionary functions are granted a qualified immunity shielding them from imposition of personal liability pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … established.

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.

Crittindon v. LeBlanc

37 F.4th 177 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 10, 2022

Nonetheless, the majority concludes three DPSC defendants violated plaintiffs’ clearly established right to timely release from prison and denies them qualified immunity. … Even still, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, because it is not clearly established that it violates the Constitution to hold a prisoner for 17 days while employing reasonable efforts to verify his sentence

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.)

Benavidez v. Shutiva

8 N.M. Ct. App. 95 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2015

“The granting of qualified immunity results in immunity 5 from suit.” Oldfield v. … Since the law was not clearly established, the 4 defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and the lower court’s decision was 5 reversed. Id. 6 {41} Reichle controls our analysis here.

Thomas L. Sluman v. State of Washington

418 P.3d 125 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 22, 2018

Nevertheless, the decisions do not bestow absolute immunity on the officers. In short, Thomas Sluman presents many cases that establish that Trooper Bart Olson violated his clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. … Davis, focused on whether Officer Danny Davis should receive qualified immunity.

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.

Tan Lam v. City of Los Banos

976 F.3d 986 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 25, 2020

In sum, the district court properly denied the Rule 50(b) motion on qualified immunity as to Lam’s Fourth Amendment claim. The law was clearly established at the 30 LAM V. … Officer Acosta is Entitled to Qualified Immunity An officer is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate clearly established law. See Ashcroft v. al- Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011).