Case law

Heard v. Bear

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 6, 2020

Federal law as determined by [the] Supreme Court of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1);3 (2) “resulted in a decision that . . . involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law,” id.; or … Significantly, an “unreasonable application of” clearly established federal law under § 2254(d)(1) “must be objectively unreasonable, not merely wrong.” White v. Woodall, 134 S.

Young v. County of Fulton

999 F. Supp. 282 · District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 6, 1998

Qualified Immunity Standard The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from suits against them in their individual capacity for money damages where “their conduct does not violate clearly established … established right of which a reasonable person would have known, the defendants Pape, Lockwood, Johannes, and Hasenfuss, are therefore immune from liability under qualified immunity doctrine.

Braun v. Maynard

652 F.3d 557 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 21, 2011

Previous cases need not be on all fours with the current one to clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes. See Amaechi v. West, 237 F.3d 356, 362-63 (4th Cir. 2001). … In the qualified immunity context, these factors counsel against hastily concluding that the law clearly forbade the officers’ conduct.

Gould v. Symons

275 F. Supp. 2d 843 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 18, 2003

entitled to qualified immunity from suit. … established principle of law and, therefore, the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity.

James DeLanis v. Metro. Govt of Nashville

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 24, 2025

And it did not violate any clearly established law. … So long as its actions did not violate clearly established law, qualified immunity applies. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009).

Sorano v. Taggart

642 F. Supp. 2d 45 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 29, 2009

“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Qualified Immunity — The Merits “A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Rodgers v. Horsley

39 F.3d 308 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 5, 1994

DISCUSSION Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the federal “rights” allegedly violated were “clearly established.” Barts v. … Instead, the question in this case, as in all qualified immunity cases, is fact specific: in May 1991, was it clearly established in this circuit that it was unconstitutional for a mental institution to fail to supervise

Paul Tarashuk v. Jamie Givens

53 F.4th 154 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 8, 2022

of material fact barred a ruling on qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage. … Appellants also argued, in the alternative, that they were entitled to qualified immunity because the particular right allegedly violated was not clearly established.

Butler v. City of Norman

992 F.2d 1053 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 28, 1993

official violated the clearly established law. … In Mitchell the Court held: Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery ..

Thomas A. Munz v. Tobin Michael, Deputy U.S. Marshal Kirk Papenthien, Deputy U.S. Marshal, David R. Hansen, U.S. District Judge

28 F.3d 795 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 1, 1994

Second, defendants argue that *798 the district court improperly denied their qualified immunity defense because Munz’s allegations, even if true, did not establish a violation of a constitutional right clearly established … “This court has ... taken a broad view of what constitutes ‘clearly established law’ for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry....” Boswell v.

Knowlton Merritt v. John E. MacKey and Jerry Howard, Knowlton Merritt v. John E. MacKey Steve Vincent

932 F.2d 1317 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 8, 1991

This court also held that Vincent and Mackey were not entitled to qualified immunity because they knowingly acted outside the scope of their employment and violated a clearly established due process right. … Qualified Immunity In Merritt I , this court held that neither Vincent nor Mackey was entitled to qualified immunity because “their conduct exceeded the scope of their authority and because they violated Merritt’s clearly

Nash v. Douglas County

733 F. Supp. 100 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Nov 17, 1989

Qualified Immunity Harper, Hale, Copeland and Holmes, (“the law officer defendants”), assert that they are entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … The qualified immunity defense, first recognized by the Supreme court in Pierson v.

Santana v. Calderon

342 F.3d 18 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 26, 2003

It is important for the "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity analysis to note that Quiles was decided on November 7, 2001, after Santana's dismissal from her job in this case. … the Puerto Rico Constitution, is to focus on the second step of the qualified immunity analysis -- the clearly established question

Armijo Ex Rel. Chavez v. Wagon Mound Public Schools

159 F.3d 1253 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 28, 1998

“Such immunity is qualified in that it does not obtain when otherwise immune officials violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … that the relevant law was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred.

Angela Bouggess v. McKenzie Mattingly

482 F.3d 886 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 16, 2007

The Supreme Court has held that defendants in such suits are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … In other words, an officer will be denied qualified immunity if he violates a statutory or constitutional right that was “so clearly established when the acts were committed that any officer in the defendant’s position, measured

Ann Robinette Eric Robinette v. William Jones Richard Fentiman Tim Gassen Joshua Landis Merritt M. Beck, III City of Centralia, Missouri

476 F.3d 585 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 8, 2007

Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity depends upon the “objective legal reasonableness” of the official’s actions “assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ ” at the time of the … Robi-nette, the constitutional right was not clearly established. 8 The warrant to arrest Ms.

Brown v. Grabowski

922 F.2d 1097 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 31, 1990

Anderson’s strict elaboration of Harlow , establishing that an official is entitled to summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity, unless the right that the official is alleged to have violated is both clearly established … established constitutional duty and that he was entitled to qualified immunity.

Hall v. Stewart

297 F. Supp. 2d 1328 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 16, 2004

The Supreme Court has established a two-part test for evaluating claims of qualified immunity. … We find it does not ... ”). 3 Because no “offensiveness to others” element was clearly established under Fla. Stat. § 796.07 at the time of the arrests, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Hardy v. District of Columbia

601 F. Supp. 2d 182 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 6, 2009

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from [personal] liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … right,” and “whether *188 that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violations.”

Foley v. University of Houston System

324 F.3d 310 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 6, 2003

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”. Harlow v. … However, the test for qualified immunity is whether the Appel-lees have asserted the deprivation of a statutory right under clearly established law.