Case law

Linda L. Harrell, Individually, as Personal Representative, and as Surviving Spouse of Larry Gene Harrell, Deceased v. Decatur County, Ga.

22 F.3d 1570 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 22, 1994

Thus, if the law was clearly established, the qualified immunity privilege “ordinarily should fail, because a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” … Deputy Morris The focus of our inquiry into deputy Morris’s assertion of qualified immunity is whether his actions violated clearly established law. Rich, 841 F.2d at 1564 .

Wayne Scott and Gary Johnson v. Charles Godwin

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Aug 31, 2004

In conducting a qualified immunity analysis, the reviewing court first determines whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. See Siegert v. … “‘Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that [t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Nunez Gonzalez v. Vazquez Garced

389 F. Supp. 2d 214 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 8, 2005

Qualified Immunity Defendants further argue that the doctrine of qualified immunity bars all monetary claims against them. … The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable person

Brown v. Thompson

868 F. Supp. 326 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Oct 17, 1994

established for purposes of qualified immunity: The clearly established law is that set forth in the discussion above. … This clearly establishes that the Magistrate did not adequately address the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry. Brown’s deliberate indifference claim rests on three points.

Hayes v. Mercer County

217 N.J. Super. 614 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 21, 1987

In our discussion of the federal qualified immunity, we stated why the investigator acted in good faith here. … Plaintiffs' remaining points are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Affirmed.

Kenneth Hunt v. Dale Acosta

109 F.4th 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 23, 2024

The district court denied qualified and quasi-judicial immunity for Officer Acosta and qualified immunity for Mayor Williams and Chief Wilson. … Qualified Immunity Interlocutory review of the denial of qualified immunity is limited to “the purely legal issue of whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff are a violation of clearly established law.”

Mckinney v. Dekalb County

997 F.2d 1440 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1993

Baldwin County Bd. of Educ., 908 F.2d 1499 , 1509 (11th Cir.1990). 6 The issue on this appeal of a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is a purely legal one: first, whether there was a clearly established … a claim of violation of clearly established law.

McGee v. Snyder

326 Ill. App. 3d 343 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 7, 2001

Qualified Immunity Finally, defendants contend that, insofar as plaintiffs seek to recover damages, their claims are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing that defendants’ conduct violated any clearly established right; therefore, we hold that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in the present case. III.

Cheyenne Johnson v. Mount Pleasant Pub. Schs.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 30, 2025

So, unless Johnson has stated a legally viable claim of a violation of a clearly established right, with supporting precedent, Russell is entitled to qualified immunity. … He did not raise a “clearly established” argument at all, nor did he argue any aspect of qualified immunity based on X.M.’s facts.

Paul Thompson, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia

878 F.3d 89 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 18, 2017

Thompson’s Eighth Amendment claim on qualified immunity grounds. … Under the second prong of qualified immunity, even if an official has violated an inmate’s constitutional right, he is still entitled to immunity if the right was not so “clearly established” that “a reasonable official

Charles McManemy v. Bruce Tierney

970 F.3d 1034 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 17, 2020

In an appeal from a summary-judgment ruling on qualified immunity, we typically credit the plaintiff’s version of the facts. See id. at 378. … See Blazek, 761 F.3d at 925 (holding that jerking a non-resisting suspect from the floor to his bed after he was handcuffed and posed no threat violated clearly established law); Krout, 583 F.3d at 566 (“It was clearly established

Robert Shumate v. City of Adrian, Mich.

44 F.4th 427 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2022

On appeal, Officer Powers asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the force was not unconstitutionally excessive or, alternatively, that the law violated was not clearly established. … Powers’ use of force amounted to a violation of Shumate’s clearly established rights—the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Kinney v. Weaver

367 F.3d 337 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 24, 2002

Not long after Harlow , the Court refined the qualified immunity standard by defining “clearly established” in a way that encompasses the “objective reasonableness” inquiry: To be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified … Yet, at the same time, an official does not lose qualified immunity merely because a certain right is clearly established in the abstract.

Marine Maria Quives v. Rick Campbell and Jedd Blessing

934 F.2d 668 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 1, 1991

The court held that the defendants are entitled to. qualified immunity because “Campbell and other state officials could not reasonably be charged with knowledge that they might be violatr ing a clearly established right … the constitutional issues,” “[e]oncluding that the asserted federal statutory rights were clearly and particularly established at the time of the alleged wrongs....”

Jones v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

971 F. Supp. 2d 648 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Oct 3, 2013

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Thus, in evaluating a claim of qualified immunity, courts consider (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged

Langley v. Adams County

987 F.2d 1473 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 3, 1993

Once a defendant asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, “[t]he plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was clearly established.” [Pueblo Neighborhood Health Ctrs., Inc. v.] … Plaintiff has thus met her burden of showing clearly established law governing her First Amendment claim. Defendants assert two factual bases for their qualified immunity defense.

Barnes v. LAPORTE COUNTY

621 F. Supp. 2d 642 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 7, 2008

In determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, a plaintiff must first allege the deprivation of an actual constitutional right that is clearly established. Doyle v. … Shuter may or may not be entitled to qualified immunity, but Shuter has failed to adequately establish that qualified immunity exists as a basis for dismissal. 4 Shuter’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. [Doc. No. 18.].

JaQuan Bradford v. Ilona Avery

855 F.3d 890 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 1, 2017

The district court decided that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because Bradford could "not prove and has not produced any evidence that defendants should have been aware of a breach of a clearly established … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability unless "the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right" and "that right was clearly established

Richard Crouse v. Town of Moncks Corner

848 F.3d 576 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 15, 2017

Because the first two prongs of the test are questions of law, an employer is entitled to qualified immunity if either prong cannot be resolved under clearly established law. … To defeat a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Darrin Gruenberg v. Debra Gempeler

697 F.3d 573 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 26, 2012

To defeat a claim of qualified immunity, Gruenberg must show that the defendants violated a constitutional right and demonstrate that the right in question was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Thus, when analyzing a qualified immunity defense, courts consider whether the alleged facts demonstrate a constitutional violation, and whether the constitu- tional right was clearly established. Pearson v.