Case law

Meredith Coleman v. Nyal Frantz, Sheriff of Wells County, Indiana

754 F.2d 719 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 30, 1985

Since Frantz did not violate any then clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known, he was justified in asserting the qualified immunity defense. … Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 , 100 S.Ct. 2502 , 65 L.Ed.2d, 555 ), and that the qualified immunity is unavailable to defendants where the statutory right in such cases is clearly established.

Derrick Williams v. Michael O'leary, Clyde E. Nash, Leroy Banks

55 F.3d 320 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 25, 1995

Williams challenges both the district court’s implicit finding that Brewer and Kurian were public officials entitled to raise the qualified immunity defense and its explicit conclusion that it was not clearly established … The instant case clearly falls within the class of cases in which qualified immunity may be raised by a private defendant.

Mitchell B. Tucker v. Jack Callahan Carl Glasgow Ben Brewer City of New Johnsonville (88- 5102/5179) Wilburn Springer, Officer, (88-5103/5153)

867 F.2d 909 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 28, 1989

at least at the pleading stage, the defense of qualified immunity. … Thus, the district court concluded that Officer Springer was not entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff had alleged facts which, if proven, would establish that defendants had violated plaintiffs “clearly established

Martel v. TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR

562 F. Supp. 2d 353 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 12, 2008

Qualified Immunity Determination Qualified immunity shields government officials whose conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Thus, a qualified immunity defense is established where “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate

Amity Dimock v. City of Brooklyn Center

124 F.4th 544 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 26, 2024

The right was not “clearly established.” Rivas-Villegas, 595 U.S. at 5. The district court correctly granted qualified immunity on the officers’ warrantless entry. IV. … The right was not “clearly established.” Rivas-Villegas, 595 U.S. at 5. The district court correctly granted qualified immunity on the officers’ use of deadly force.

Jared Clinton v. Ryan Garrett

49 F.4th 1132 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 21, 2022

It does not require us to determine whether the defendants violated a “clearly established right” and, as it imposes a higher standard of care, it affords less protection than does qualified immunity. See Baldwin v. … We must still determine whether that right was clearly established.

Dwight L. McKee Allen L. Jones v. Henry Hart Wesley Rish Albert Masland James Sheehan Daniel P. Sattelle, Daniel P. Sattele

436 F.3d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 6, 2006

is entitled to qualified immunity. … right was clearly established at the time of Sattele’s alleged conduct.

Ungerer v. Moody

17 Brief Times Rptr. 160 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jan 28, 1993

More concretely, whether a police officer is protected from suit by qualified immunity turns on an objective standard of reasonableness, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time the … Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violating clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery. Mitchell v.

Serra v. United States General Services Administration

664 F. Supp. 798 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 14, 1987

The standard is an objective one: “whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.’ … Thus, for Diamond and Ink to be stripped of their qualified immunity from suit, it must have been clearly established at the time they acted that Serra possessed a cognizable constitutional liberty or property interest in

Hubbard v. Board of Education

19 Kan. App. 2d 853 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Jun 24, 1994

In this case, the defendants argue they were entitled to qualified immunity. … The district court correctly held the Board had not violated a clearly established law and was entitled to qualified immunity for its actions.

Adeline Lennon v. Chief William P. Miller, the City of Troy, Patrolman Donald J. Backaus, and Patrolman Peter Gordon

66 F.3d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 12, 1995

’s clearly established constitutional rights. … his ... actions did not violate any of those clearly established rights.

Buchanan v. Metz

132 F. Supp. 3d 922 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 14, 2015

violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009).

Nicholas C. Wade v. Solomon Daniels

36 F.4th 1318 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 13, 2022

medical needs—which, as addressed in the following sections, he cannot—qualified immunity applies because Wade failed to show that the defendants violated clearly established law. … Because there is no clearly established law that placed Investigators Daniels, Jones, and Wilson on notice that their actions violated Wade’s constitutional rights, they are entitled to qualified immunity on Wade’s medical

Zimmerman v. Corbett

195 F. Supp. 3d 695 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2016

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated- a clearly established constitutional right. Pearson v. … Whether the right at issue is clearly established Having determined that Plaintiff alleged a constitutional violation, the Court turns the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Pritchett v. Lanier

766 F. Supp. 442 · District Court, D. South Carolina · May 31, 1991

The defense of qualified immunity generally protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … The qualified immunity test necessitates three discrete determinations: the identification of the specific right allegedly violated, the determination of whether that right was so “clearly established” as to alert a reasonable

City of Phoenix v. Superior Court

180 Ariz. 472 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Aug 4, 1994

The agents asserted qualified immunity as a defense. … the defendant’s version of the facts, the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established law.

Marshall v. Board of County Commissioners for Johnson County

912 F. Supp. 1456 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Jan 22, 1996

in a qualified immunity case according to clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Further, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails to show that the law was clearly established. See, e.g., Pallottino v.

PALMIERI VS. CLARK CO.

2015 NV 102 · Nevada Supreme Court · Dec 31, 2015

Ct. 305, 308 (2015) ("The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established .. … A searching officer is entitled to qualified immunity if "a reasonable officer could have believed" that the search was lawful "in light of clearly established law and the information

Krout v. Goemmer

583 F.3d 557 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 6, 2009

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability when his conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … That is the ‘clearly established’ law.

Duffie v. Wichita County

990 F. Supp. 2d 695 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 31, 2013

immunity analysis and asks whether, nevertheless, qualified immunity is appropriate because the Officer Defendants’ actions were objectively reasonable “in light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct in question … As already stated, qualified immunity is a defense available to public officials performing discretionary functions “... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of