Case law

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.

Michael Sack v. City of St. Louis

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 4, 2026

In an interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity, we have jurisdiction to decide “the purely legal issue of whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff are a violation of clearly established law.” … Qualified immunity shields officials from suit under § 1983 if their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v.

DiLoreto v. Borough of Oaklyn

744 F. Supp. 610 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 21, 1990

clearly established right). … As was noted in the discussion of qualified immunity, it was clearly established that a search will be considered a violation of the fourth amendment if it is unreasonable. Bell v.

Hill v. Taconic Developmental Disabilities Services Office

283 F. Supp. 2d 955 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 22, 2003

Leonard, holding that a supervisor defendant is shielded by qualified immunity unless; (1) the law violated by the defendant’s subordinate is clearly established and (2) the supervisory liability doctrine under which the … If they were, then McNeill violated clearly established law.

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.

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.

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.

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

Hemry v. Ross

62 F.4th 1248 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 10, 2023

When a defendant claims qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show “(1) the defendant violated his constitutional rights; and (2) the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Soza v. … Accordingly, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Smith v. Schwarzenegger

137 F. Supp. 3d 1233 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 7, 2015

Qualified Immunity. … Accordingly, the Court skips the first step of the Saucier qualified immunity analysis. b. Defendants Did Not Violate Clearly Established Law.

Baxter v. Bracey

140 S. Ct. 1862 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 15, 2020

Applying our qualified immunity precedents, the Sixth Cir- cuit held that even if the officers’ conduct violated the Con- stitution, they were not liable because their conduct did not violate a clearly established right. … There likely is no basis for the objective inquiry into clearly established law that our modern cases prescribe.

C.B. v. Sonora School District

691 F. Supp. 2d 1170 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 8, 2010

Qualified Immunity. Defendants move to dismiss the Eighth Cause' of Action on the ground that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages under Section 1983. … Qualified immunity serves to shield government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Jose Doe v. Dave Goodman

691 F. App'x 272 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 25, 2017

violated clearly established law). … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243-44 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (officer conducting search is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show search violated Fourth Amendment).