Case law

Wendell Domina, Blaise Riggs, Linden Snyder, Van Harpold, and Jerry Soule v. George Van Pelt, Individually Klayton Johnson, Individually Dale Shaul, Individually and Charles Person, Individually

235 F.3d 1091 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 26, 2000

facts show a violation of clearly established law. … IV. 17 The commissioners would nonetheless be protected by qualified immunity if in early 1998 (the time of their alleged misconduct) it was not clearly established that the speech in which Mr.

Barrett v. Miller

599 So. 2d 559 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1992

Vincent, Jr. and Chris Robinson, the two deputies who conducted the search, on the grounds that the Barretts failed to allege facts that established that the search by the deputies lacked good faith or violated clearly established … The deputies argue that qualified or good faith immunity can only be abrogated upon a showing of a lack of good faith belief that the conduct was lawful; that the conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional

Siggers v. Alex

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 24, 2021

Qualified Immunity The parties dispute Alex’s entitlement to qualified immunity. … Because the right was clearly established by 1984, Alex is entitled to qualified immunity only if the facts—taken in the light most favorable to Siggers—show that Alex’s conduct did not violate Brady.

Club Retro, L.L.C. v. Hilton

568 F.3d 181 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 6, 2009

“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 a reasonable person … Id. 4 “To be ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity, ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’ ” Kinney

Gilmore v. Bostic

659 F. Supp. 2d 755 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 22, 2009

in a prison’s sex offender treatment program is not clearly established. … immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known.

Bey v. Tennessee Department of Correction

District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Sep 28, 2020

“An answer of ‘yes’ to both questions defeats qualified immunity, while an answer of ‘no’ to either question results in a grant of qualified immunity.” Haley v. Elsmere Police Dep’t, 452 F. … Despite the factual similarities to Plaintiff’s case, the law was not clearly established under the First Amendment.

Wilcoxon v. City of Detroit Election Commission

301 Mich. App. 619 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 2013

DEFENDANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY UNDER § 4 OF THE MMMA The language of § 4 indicates that a “qualifying patient” who has been issued and possesses a registry *609 identification card is immune from arrest and prosecution … In other words, the language establishing limited immunity in § 4 of the MMMA expressly conditions that immunity on the person possessing no amount of marijuana that does not qualify as usable marijuana under the applicable

African Trade & Information Center, Inc., Mohamoud D. Ahmed, and Alan W. Gates v. James F. Abromaitis

294 F.3d 355 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 23, 2002

The First Amendment Claim The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Even if a district court decision could “establish” a right for the purpose of the qualified immunity inquiry, A.F.C.

Trey Sims v. Kenneth Labowitz

885 F.3d 254 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 14, 2018

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or other rights that a reasonable officer would have … clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Sain v. Wood

512 F.3d 886 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 9, 2008

Wood moved for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. The district court denied his summary judgment motion, and Dr. Wood appeals the denial of qualified immunity. … Wood had disqualified himself from immunity by violating a clearly established constitutional right. Because the issue of Dr.

Whittier v. Kobayashi

581 F.3d 1304 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 31, 2009

DISCUSSION “Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional … “To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must satisfy a two prong test; he must show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

Sheryl J. Howard v. Jan Dickerson, and Charles Milton, Keith Purdue

34 F.3d 978 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 7, 1994

The Martin court upheld the denial of qualified immunity because Garcia clearly established pretrial detainees share the same protection from deliberate indifference to serious medical needs as convicted inmates. … When a defendant raises the issue of qualified immunity on a summary judgment motion, the plaintiff must demonstrate the alleged conduct constituted a violation of law and the law was clearly established at the time of the

Chavez v. County of Bernalillo

3 F. Supp. 3d 936 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jan 31, 2014

established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualifíed Immunity Analysis.

Derrick Neely-Beytarik-El v. Daniel Conley

912 F.3d 989 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 2, 2019

Turning to the issue of qualified immunity, Mr. Neely-Bey asserted that it was clearly established that IDOC could not restrict his right to practice his religion ex- cept when required by penological interests. Mr. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil “liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable per- son would have known.’”

L.R. v. Philadelphia School District

836 F.3d 235 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 6, 2016

, however, when public officials violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a concerns only the District Court’s denial of Littlejohn’s claim of qualified immunity. 6 Mitchell v. … “Even if none exists, it may be possible that a ‘robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority’ in the Court[s] of Appeals could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity.”60 Defining the right

Howard Linden v. City of Southfield, Mich.

75 F.4th 597 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 26, 2023

And for qualified immunity purposes, any lack of clarity in Willis would only support the First Responders’ position that Linden has failed to identify a “clearly established” right. Sumpter, 868 F.3d at 480. … Unpublished cases cannot clearly establish law for purposes of qualified immunity. See Bell v. City of Southfield, 37 F.4th 362, 367 (6th Cir. 2022).

Broderick Fourte v. Faulkner County, Arkansas

746 F.3d 384 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 25, 2014

“To determine whether [officials] are entitled to qualified immunity, we consider (1) whether the facts alleged, construed in the light most favorable to [to the plaintiff], establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory … Stewart and Nurse Lumpkin’s qualified immunity defense. See White v. McKinley, 519 F.3d 806, 815 (8th Cir. 2008).

Khorrami v. Rolince

539 F.3d 782 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 27, 2008

Qualified immunity is the right to be free at the earliest point at which the court can be sure that the government official's conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that any reasonable … In an interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity, the first question is "whether or not certain given facts showed a violation of `clearly established law.'"

Gallegos v. City & County of Denver

984 F.2d 358 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 20, 1993

that the defendant’s alleged actions violated clearly established law. … As stated above, government officials are entitled to a grant of qualified immunity unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Terrence Hammock v. Gail Watts

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 23, 2025

Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity if Hammock alleged a deprivation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of Defendants’ alleged conduct. … One would be hard-pressed to find a more clearly established constitutional violation than the one before us here.