Case law

John Kelly, Jr. v. Steven Curtis Julie M. Gibson J.R. Moore Chatham County, Ga

21 F.3d 1544 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 8, 1994

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability under federal law unless their conduct violates a “clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional right[ … By distinguishing these two out-of-circuit decisions that Kelly has cited, we do not mean to imply that the law can be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes by non-binding precedent. See Hansen v.

Gallimore ex rel. W.S.G. v. Henrico County School Board

38 F. Supp. 3d 721 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Aug 5, 2014

“A school official searching a student is ‘entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.’ ” Id. at 377 , 129 S.Ct. 2633 (quoting Pearson v. … “[W]here no reasonable officer could believe he was acting in accordance with [a clearly established constitutional right], qualified immunity will not attach.” Pinder v. Johnson, 54 F.3d 1169, 1173 (4th Cir.1995).

John W. Burgess Linda M. Burgess, Husband and Wife v. Pierce County, a Municipal Corporation Joseph Stortini Jane "Doe" Stortini, Husband and Wife

918 F.2d 104 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 2, 1990

The scope of our review is detailed in Mitchell : 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 … “[S]tate and local officials are entitled to qualified immunity if ‘their conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Manhattan Beach

Sherika Franklin v. Jason Popovich

111 F.4th 1188 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 6, 2024

Thus, the court concluded, Franklin had not shown that Popovich violated clearly established law, and Popovich was entitled to qualified immunity. Franklin appealed. … concluded” that “the circumstances justified the use of deadly violation as well as the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. Id. at 1009–13.

Turner v. Scott

119 F.3d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 16, 1997

Turner, does not establish a prima facie case against Officer Scott, then Officer Scott is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … The issue on a claim of qualified immunity is not solely whether the right alleged to be violated was clearly established.

Fox v. Government of the District of Columbia

794 F.3d 25 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 17, 2015

Officer Boyd moved for judgment on the pleadings for Count 1, arguing that he is protected by qualified immunity. The district court explained, to overcome Officer Boyd’s claim to qualified immunity, Mrs. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects police officers “from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they have violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct

AHE Realty Assoc., LLC v. Miami-Dade Cnty.

320 F. Supp. 3d 1322 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 29, 2018

Qualified Immunity Naranjo also states he is entitled to qualified immunity. … A defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal "unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law." Cottone v. Jenne , 326 F.3d 1352 , 1357 (11th Cir. 2003).

Thomas L. Feathers Kathleen Feathers v. William Aey J.P. Donohue, City of Akron

319 F.3d 843 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 13, 2003

The district court refused to grant the officers qualified immunity, ruling that the officers violated Thomas Feathers’s (“Feathers”) clearly established rights to *846 be free from an unreasonable seizure and to be free … Federal appellate courts have jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals concerning “the legal question of qualified immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law.” Mattox v.

Rico v. Ducart

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 27, 2026

The district court properly dismissed Rico’s action because defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See Cuevas v. … of their conduct was clearly established at the time.”

Soares v. Connecticut

8 F.3d 917 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 2, 1993

Accordingly, Konow is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. II. … can show that the rights plaintiff claims to have been violated were not “clearly established.”

Rosenfeld v. Clark

586 F. Supp. 1332 · District Court, D. Vermont · May 11, 1984

We are aware of no clearly established due process rights which required the Board to act more quickly than it did, no decision which clearly states that a sixty day or even a ninety day appeal process in a situation such … Where there has been no violation of a clearly established right, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and plaintiffs claim for damages must be dismissed.

Barnett v. Karpinos

119 N.C. App. 719 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 15, 1995

In reviewing this argument, we apply the following standard: “The test of qualified immunity for police officers sued under [section 1983] is whether [the officers’ conduct violated] clearly established statutory or constitutional … In ruling on the defense of qualified immunity we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation; and (3)

Gressley v. Deutsch

890 F. Supp. 1474 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Oct 5, 1994

and law to establish that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity and do more than identify, in the abstract, a clearly established right.

LaChance v. Town of Charlton

990 F.3d 14 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 3, 2021

Of course, prior cases with materially similar facts are not necessary to clearly establish conduct's illegality; a "general constitutional rule" located in prior authority can suffice to defeat qualified immunity even … (alteration in district court precedent when determining if constitutional rights are clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.").

Hart v. City of Jersey City

308 N.J. Super. 487 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 25, 1998

The trial judge was correct to conclude that plaintiff had made no prima facie showing that a clearly established right was impinged. … It is clear also that the issue of qualified immunity was a fit subject for disposition in the pre-trial phase of the suit.

Johnston v. City of Houston, Tex.

14 F.3d 1056 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 22, 1994

Principles of Qualified Immunity The qualified or "good faith" immunity doctrine was established to reconcile two competing interests. … Whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity "generally turns on the "objective reasonableness of the action" assessed in light of the legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time

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.

In Re: Montgomery County

215 F.3d 367 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 9, 2000

clearly established right which the Appellants violated and therefore denied them the protection of qualified immunity." … Holding as we do that Wright has alleged the violation of a clearly established right, we must also hold that the Appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings. IV.

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.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Feb 25, 2002

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. Id. ; Robinson v.