Case law

Mary Jo. Bradley v. Officer Casey Benton

10 F.4th 1232 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 26, 2021

“Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged action.” Bailey v. … In other words, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless he (1) violated a constitutional right, and (2) that constitutional right was clearly established at the time. See Helm, 989 F.3d at 1272.

Wells v. Bonner

45 F.3d 90 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 17, 1995

, they alternatively contend that they are entitled to claim qualified immunity because Wells has failed to show that they violated any clearly established constitutional right. … In this immunity appeal, we must next determine whether Wells's proffered evidence demonstrates the basis for the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Siegert, 500 U.S.

Howze v. Virginia Polytechnic

901 F. Supp. 1091 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jul 12, 1995

Government officials exercising discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity if the officer’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … For qualified immunity purposes, however, the record is sufficient to hold that, even if the speech is ultimately decided to be protected, that right was not clearly established in 1992 and 1993.

Frederick A. Siegert, ph.d. v. H. Melvyn Gilley, ph.d.

895 F.2d 797 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 16, 1990

The court concluded that “[Gil-ley’s] qualified immunity defense therefore fails,” id., and that Siegert had established a proper basis for a Bivens claim. Id. at 1419. Defendant then filed this appeal. … Instead, to overcome the qualified immunity that ordinarily attaches to government officials performing discretionary functions, a plaintiff must show that the defendant violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional

Wernecke v. Garcia

591 F.3d 386 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 15, 2009

“The ‘clearly established’ standard does not mean that officials’ conduct is protected by qualified immunity unless ‘the very action in question has previously been held unlawful.’ ” Id. at 350 (quoting Anderson, 483 U.S. … “[A]n official does not lose qualified immunity merely because a certain right is clearly established in the abstract.” Kinney, 367 F.3d at 350 .

Waller v. State

64 Wash. App. 318 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 18, 1992

The Meyers court determined that the proper qualified immunity test was whether the conduct complained of "violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … The qualified immunity question is whether the caseworkers' actions violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Meyers , at 1158.

Emmett v. Armstrong

973 F.3d 1127 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 1, 2020

Because Emmett’s excessive force claim alleges a clearly established violation of the Fourth Amendment, Officer Armstrong is not entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. … “[W]hen a finding of qualified immunity is based on a conclusion that the officer has committed no constitutional violation—i.e., the first step of the qualified immunity analysis—a finding of qualified immunity . . .

Galvez v. Bruce

552 F.3d 1238 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 18, 2008

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability when they are performing discretionary functions and their actions “‘[do] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The Supreme Court has instructed that courts should not proceed to the third step of the qualified immunity inquiry – whether the law at the time of the events clearly established such a violation – unless they find that

Foley v. Univ of Houston Sys

355 F.3d 333 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 18, 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.” … However, the test for qualified immunity is whether the Appellees have asserted the deprivation of a statutory right under clearly established law.

Conner v. Rodriguez

891 F. Supp. 2d 1228 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 8, 2011

is entitled to qualified immunity. … City of Madera, 655 F.Supp.2d 1109 (E.D.Cal.2009), granted the officer qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that accidental use of a pistol instead of a taser violated the Fourth Amendment, and the circuit

Alexander v. Margolis

921 F. Supp. 482 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Nov 1, 1995

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Court held that a defense of qualified immunity depends upon the reasonableness of an official's conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established … In his response to defendants’ claim of qualified immunity, he has not alleged how the defendants’ actions alleged in his complaint have violated clearly established law.

Searles v. City of Houston

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 9, 2026

However, bound by our qualified immunity precedent, we affirm the district court on the basis that there is no clearly established law. I. … In particular, plaintiffs “must rebut the [qualified immunity] defense by establishing a genuine fact issue as to whether the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.”

Drolett v. DeMarco

382 F. App'x 7 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 16, 2010

by qualified immunity.” … Here, we move immediately to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis. We therefore consider whether plaintiff’s rights were “clearly established” at the time defendants disciplined Drolett. In Garcetti v.

Anthony Gant v. Daniel Hartman

924 F.3d 445 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 14, 2019

Benner, 913 F.3d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 2019) (affirming denial of qualified immunity). … Officer Hartman claims that he is entitled to qualified im- munity because his actions did not violate Gant’s constitu- tional rights and, even if they did, those rights were not clearly established on or before August 23,

Logan v. Sycamore Community School Board of Education

780 F. Supp. 2d 594 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 3, 2011

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 or constitutional rights of which … cannot violate clearly established constitutional rights as conduct that would “shock the conscience” (doc. 64).

Grigsby & Assocs., Inc. v. City of Shreveport

294 F. Supp. 3d 529 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Feb 14, 2018

A defendant who can validly raise a qualified immunity defense will enjoy its protection so long as the allegedly violated constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the violation. See id. … The qualified immunity inquiry turns on "the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken". Id. at 244, 129 S.Ct. at 822.

Fisher v. Dallas County

299 F.R.D. 527 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 18, 2014

“Even if the government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable.” Wallace v. … See Morin, 77 F.3d at 120 (“Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 unless it is shown by specific allegations that the officials violated clearly established law.”); Schultea, 47 F.3d at

Mich. Interlock, LLC v. Alcohol Detection Sys., LLC

360 F. Supp. 3d 671 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 27, 2018

Qualified immunity "shield[s]" public officials from money-damages liability if 'their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … In other words, Secretary Johnson is entitled to qualified immunity in her personal capacity because, at the time of the Order, it was not clearly established that she might violate Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.

Earl v. Gusman

228 So. 3d 268 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Sep 27, 2017

Further, the court found that Earl |.Jailed to establish that Sheriff Gusman was not entitled to the application of the doctrines of qualified immunity or force majeure. This appeal follows. … Earl also argues that the trial court erred in applying the doctrine of qualified immunity. Louisiana Revised Statute 9:2798.1, provides in part; B.

Jimenez v. County of Los Angeles

29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 553 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 2, 2005

were entitled to qualified immunity. … Government employees generally are shielded by qualified immunity “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person