Case law

Shechter v. Comptroller of City of New York

79 F.3d 265 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 21, 1996

Accordingly, defendants-appellants' pleading is insufficient to establish their qualified immunity defense. 21 Because defendants-appellants' qualified immunity defense fails with respect to the scope of authority issue, … court's ruling on the issue of qualified immunity must be affirmed for the reasons previously stated, we will not proceed to a definitive resolution of the "clearly established right" issue at this juncture.

Estate of Owensby v. City of Cincinnati

414 F.3d 596 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 7, 2005

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the facts alleged fail to establish a constitutional violation, then the inquiry ends and the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

Perry v. Greanias

95 S.W.3d 683 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Dec 27, 2002

Government officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity from liability for actions that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … in light of the clearly established rights.

Steven Hill v. William Shelander

992 F.2d 714 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 30, 1993

In that instance, Shelander would not have violated Hill’s clearly established constitutional rights, and he would be entitled to qualified immunity. … Clearly Established Constitutional Standards.

Douglas Stalley v. Lake CI Warden

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 30, 2024

Because this is a qualified immunity case, the defendants don’t have to show that the law is clearly established that they did not act with deliberate indifference. … For all of these reasons, Brown is clearly distinguishable and cannot be used to establish that there was deliberate indifference here, much less that it was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 13, 2000

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an individual is immune from trial if the actions complained of were taken in good faith in the performance of one's duties, and the acts do not violate any clearly established constitutional … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.

Spiker v. Allegheny County Board of Probation & Parole

920 F. Supp. 2d 580 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 2013

In order for a federally protected right 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 [or … Whittaker may be entitled to qualified immunity for these actions, however, if it would not have been clear to a reasonable officer in her position that those actions violated clearly established law.

Brannum Ex Rel. Brannum v. Overton County School Board

516 F.3d 489 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 20, 2008

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, public officials cannot be held liable for violating a person’s constitutional rights unless the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged improper conduct. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987), the Supreme Court articulated the meaning of “clearly established” in the context of the defense of qualified immunity: The contours of the right must be sufficiently

Armstrong v. Daily

786 F.3d 529 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 11, 2015

In holding that the complaint alleges a violation of clearly established constitutional law, we express no opinion on the propriety of qualified immunity at a later stage of litigation. E. … The qualified immunity defense focuses instead on whether the official defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Williams v. Miniard

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 27, 2023

The Magistrate Judge properly concluded that the rights to be free from unduly tight restraints and from gratuitous violence when already restrained is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. … Kiefer, 310 F.3d 937, 944 (6th Cir. 2002) (“The right to be free from ‘excessively forceful handcuffing’ is a clearly established right for qualified immunity purposes.”); Kostrzewa v.

Curtis Arnold v. Patrick Jones C/o Blythe C/o Creeden C/o Scheers C/o Edwards C/o Whitson Lt. Olson

891 F.2d 1370 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 19, 1990

However, prison officials are generally immune from suit on the basis of qualified good faith immunity unless “their conduct ... violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The existence of a clearly established right, however, does not end our inquiry into whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Taft v. Vines

70 F.3d 304 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 16, 1995

Under that analysis, we found that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity in that case because: (1) the right not to be arrested without probable cause was clearly established; and (2) a reasonably competent … Under the first two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis, it is plain that the specific right in question — the right not to be stopped and frisked without reasonable suspicion — was indeed clearly established at the

Cameron Lewis v. Kevin Caraballo

98 F.4th 521 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 15, 2024

We now turn to the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis, “whether the [constitutional or statutory] violation was of a ‘clearly established’ right.” Valladares v. … established law for purposes of adjudging entitlement to qualified immunity.’”)

Jeremiah Hogan v. Lincoln Medical Partners

2025 ME 22 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 4, 2025

Even construed strictly because it is in derogation of the common law, the immunity statute is clearly broad in scope. See Jamison v. … As to Hogan’s assertion that the immunity provision violates the child’s constitutional right of bodily integrity, “[i]n the context of COVID-19, courts across the country have concluded that Jacobson established that there

Randy Cole v. Michael Hunter

802 F.3d 752 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 25, 2015

Clearly established law Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, we ask whether it was clearly established in October 2010 that using deadly force against a person in circumstances like those here … established law, and Officer Carson is entitled to qualified immunity.

Long v. Slaton

508 F.3d 576 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 16, 2007

, violated no clearly established *584 right. … Montoute is a qualified immunity decision.

Danese v. Asman

875 F.2d 1239 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 26, 1989

The defendants contend that they should be dismissed as individual defendants on the grounds of qualified immunity. We hold that the defendants are entitled to qualified^, immunity and therefore, reverse. … After the amendment, the defendants moved for summary judgment on the qualified immunity issue.

Elyese Anderson v. Michael Waddle

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 8, 2010

Qualified Immunity: General Principles “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Qualified immunity is not only a defense to liability but also an immunity from suit. Id.

Harrison v. Ash

539 F.3d 510 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 28, 2008

2) whether that right was clearly established. … Thus, qualified immunity allows suits which allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right to go forward while insulating officers against suits that are frivolous or where a reasonable officer attempting

Rozek v. Topolnicki

865 F.2d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 12, 1989

The court held that defendants Reisdorff and Liddle were entitled to qualified immunity because they were working under To-polnicki’s direction, and that Rozek had not shown they had violated any clearly established constitutional … The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials “generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights