Case law

Ermini v. Scott

249 F. Supp. 3d 1253 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 6, 2017

Even if shooting plaintiff was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, Deputy Hamer is entitled to qualified immunity unless plaintiff establishes that Deputy Hamer violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established … The Fourth Amendment right was not clearly established in the specific context of this case. Therefore, even if plaintiffs Fourth Amendment right was violated, Deputy Hamer is entitled to qualified immunity. D.

Paul Mollica v. James A. Volker

229 F.3d 366 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 6, 2000

For a constitutional right to be “clearly established” for purposes of determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would … whether the right is clearly established).

Wettersten v. Chillicothe City School District Board of Education

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 27, 2022

Kammer, 955 F.3d 520, 540–41 (6th Cir. 2020) (holding parents’ right to make decisions concerning the care and custody of their children without government interference was clearly established). … City of New York, 775 F.3d 538 (2d Cir. 2015) (affirming decision that state statute and regulation excluding children not immunized from school during disease outbreak was constitutional despite parental objection).

Randall R. Bradford v. Mike Huckabee

330 F.3d 1038 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 5, 2003

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity in suits against them in their individual capacity as long as their actions do not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, to be upheld in a motion to dismiss only when the immunity can be established on the face of the complaint.

Stonecipher v. Valles

759 F.3d 1134 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 1, 2014

When a defendant raises qualified immunity as a defense, “a plaintiff must properly allege a deprivation of a constitutional right and must further show that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time … the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Crosby v. Paulk

187 F.3d 1339 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 10, 1999

Qualified immunity protects government officials who have acted within their discretionary authority from civil trials and other litigation burdens "if their conduct violates no 'clearly established statutory or constitutional … With these guiding precepts governing entitlement to qualified immunity, we examine the circumstances under which Sheriff Paulk, Commander Winningham, Agent Griffin, and Agent Kendrick acted in view of clearly established

O'Donnell v. Knott

283 F. Supp. 3d 286 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 2017

qualified immunity because the complaint does not plausibly allege that they violated Plaintiff's clearly established First Amendment rights. … In sum, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a violation of her clearly established constitutional rights. Accordingly, the detectives' qualified immunity defense will be denied, without prejudice. 10 C.

Napier v. Town of Windham

187 F.3d 177 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 6, 1999

There are two prongs to the qualified immunity analysis. The first prong is whether the constitutional right in question was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See Swain v. … Finding that no such duty was clearly established at the time of the incident, we held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. See id. at 28.

Massey v. Banning Unified School District

256 F. Supp. 2d 1090 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 28, 2003

If a violation has been alleged, a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity if the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Id. at 200-201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … In their motion, Defendants focus their qualified immunity argument on the contention that the right to be free of sexual orientation-based discrimination is not clearly established because there is no “closely analogous

Matthews v. City of New York

889 F. Supp. 2d 418 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 5, 2012

Moreover, “ ‘[e]ven where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was ‘objectively reasonable … As noted supra, “the qualified immunity inquiry turns on whether the defendants’ actions were objectively reasonable under clearly established law; and the clearly established law of excessive force itself hinges on the reasonableness

Donald M. Johnson v. Bob Odom

910 F.2d 1273 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 7, 1990

An appeal may be taken from a finding against qualified immunity where the issue involved is the purely legal one of “whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the … qualified immunities was proper.

Stella v. Kelley

63 F.3d 71 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 23, 1995

Thus, the doctrine of qualified immunity limits a plaintiff's damages against state actors "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The meaning of the adjectival phrase "clearly 4 established," as it operates in the qualified immunity arena, has not always been clearly established.

Nelson v. Green

965 F. Supp. 2d 732 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Aug 15, 2013

While the court in Costanich affirmed qualified immunity for a social worker defendant where that constitutional right had not been clearly established, the court put government officials in the Ninth Circuit on notice that … When a government official asserts qualified immunity, the court must determine: (1) whether the facts alleged show that his or her actions violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right asserted 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.

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.

Dodds v. Richardson

614 F.3d 1185 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 6, 2010

As Justice Thomas explained: In conducting qualified immunity analysis ..., courts do not merely ask whether, taking the plaintiffs allegations as true, the plaintiffs clearly established rights were violated. … For instance, an allegation that Defendant A violated a plaintiffs clearly established rights does nothing to overcome Defendant B’s assertion of qualified immunity, absent some allegation that Defendant B was responsible

Keck v. Eminisor

37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 697 · Supreme Court of Florida · Nov 15, 2012

on the issue of qualified immunity.” … We analyzed “the nature of the rights involved,” concluding that immunity from suit involved in qualified immunity required that interlocutory review be available to an individual whose claim of qualified immunity was denied

Lawlor v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2019

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243 (2009) (holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity where they “did not violate clearly established law”). … to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ Wiretap Act claim.

Babb v. Dorman

33 F.3d 472 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 19, 1994

"Qualified" or "good faith" immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability "unless their conduct violates 'clearly established statutory … Moreover, his proposed second amended complaint added nothing to aid in the determination of the qualified immunity issue except for the legal conclusion that Dorman's actions violated clearly established law.

Pierson v. Gondles

693 F. Supp. 408 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Aug 11, 1988

Defendants raise the defense of qualified immunity on the grounds that it was not clearly established that the personnel actions taken by the Sheriff would violate the deputies’ constitutional rights. … For the purposes of qualified immunity, it would not have been "clearly established” that the plaintiffs would be entitled to any procedural protections.