Case law

Rivera v. Mattingly

604 F. Supp. 2d 634 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 24, 2009

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects officials from liability under certain circumstances. … For a claim of qualified immunity to be defeated, a plaintiff must have alleged facts constituting a violation of a constitutional right, and the right at issue must have been clearly established at the time of the alleged

Lojuk v. Johnson

770 F.2d 619 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 8, 1985

and qualified immunity. … Plaintiff argued in the alternative that even if defendants had not violated clearly established constitutional rights, they should be denied qualified immunity because they had violated a state administrative regulation.

Brandon Raub v. Michael Campbell

785 F.3d 876 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 29, 2015

(2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … [Campbell’s] action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

SCHROEDER v. DeKALB COUNTY Et Al.

341 Ga. App. 748 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jun 14, 2017

Qualified immunity protects officials performing discretionary functions from individual claims brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … were clearly established at the time the action was taken.

Quinones v. Howard

948 F. Supp. 251 · District Court, W.D. New York · Dec 11, 1996

It is well-established that issues involving the defense of qualified immunity should ordinarily be decided “at the earliest possible stage in litigation.” Anderson v. … Even when such rights are clearly established, qualified immunity also protects a government official if it is objectively reasonable for [the official] to believe that his acts did not violate those rights.” Russell v.

Dennis Lee Campbell v. Paul Burt, and John Doe (3), Police Officers

141 F.3d 927 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 6, 1998

The primary issue before us is whether, for purposes of qualified immunity, the seven-day delay before filing the petition and obtaining post-deprivation judicial review violated Campbell’s clearly established procedural … However, “[a]n official is entitled to qualified immunity if the right which he allegedly violated is not ‘clearly established.’ ” Campbell, 949 F.Supp. at 1468 (quoting Anderson v.

Willingham v. Crooke

412 F.3d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 23, 2005

This is known as the defense of qualified immunity. 13 Police officers are presumed to know about the clearly established constitutional rights of citizens. In this case, Ms. … immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

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)

Fortner v. Thomas

983 F.2d 1024 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 18, 1993

clearly established law." … It is well established that the doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages liability as long as the officials could reasonably believe that their conduct did not violate clearly established

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.

Columbian Financial Corporation v. Stork

811 F.3d 390 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 26, 2016

Thull enjoy qualified immunity on this claim because the alleged conduct would not have violated a clearly established constitutional right. … For qualified immunity, however, the question is whether that constitutional requirement was clearly established.

Tosun Fitil v. Justyn Riley

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 31, 2026

What we can review is the denial of qualified immunity on Fitil’s Fourth Amendment claim. … Even though the plaintiff “was shot in the knee with a rubber bullet” from “less than 10 feet away,” we granted qualified immunity because it was not clearly established “as of April 2021 that officers effect a seizure when

MCCLOUD v. VANSHOYCK

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 19, 2024

Defendants Holt, Donovan, Barlow, Hall, and Nicholson all argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is not a clearly established right to an additional decontamination shower beyond … "Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." White v.

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

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,

WALKER v. REGAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 1, 2021

trooper was entitled to qualified immunity because his use of deadly force did not violate a clearly established right). … No. 201) where the Third Circuit Court of Appeals noted that, for the purposes of qualified immunity, “[t]o be clearly established, a right must be so apparent that ‘every reasonable official would understand that what

Trafton v. City of Woodbury

799 F. Supp. 2d 417 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 29, 2011

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. 12 Montanez, 603 F.3d at 250 . … See id. at 823 (finding that because the unlawfulness of the officers’ conduct was not clearly established, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, without having to answer the question of whether the officers violated

Stevenson v. Toce

113 F.4th 494 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 22, 2024

Clearly established Next, Stevenson must demonstrate that the violation of his rights was “clearly established.” Cooper, 844 F.3d at 522. … Jackson clearly established that such circumstances, if proven true, violate the Eighth Amendment.

Denno Ex Rel. Denno v. School Board of Volusia County

959 F. Supp. 1481 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 3, 1997

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. Mitchell v. … In this case, the Court finds that Roberts and Wallace are entitled to dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity because the law is not so “clearly established” in such a “concrete and factually defined context” to make

Valdez v. Farmon

766 F. Supp. 1529 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 11, 1991

event to compel her to give up that clearly established right. … A defendant is entitled to a qualified immunity if: 1. the law allegedly violated was not clearly established (a legal issue); 2. assuming that the law was clearly established, a reasonable person in the same circumstances