Case law

Engle v. Townsley

49 F.3d 1321 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 7, 1995

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … A reasonable official would have known that firing Engle in such circumstances would violate her clearly established first amendment rights.

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.'"

Picariello v. Commonwealth

54 Pa. Commw. 252 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 1980

However, plaintiff’s complaint clearly contradicts that claim, by alleging that the Secretary acted as a Commonwealth agent. 6 The guidelines established in DuBree v. … Defendant shall file an answer, possibly with new matter addressing the issue of qualified official immunity, if desired.

Francine Solomon v. Auburn Hills Police Department, a Municipal Corporation, Officer David Miller

389 F.3d 167 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 10, 2004

Kiefer, 310 F.3d 937, 944 (6th Cir.2002) (recognizing that “right to be free from ‘excessively forceful handcuffing’ is a clearly established right for qualified immunity purposes”); Turek v. … Constitutional Right Clearly Established Once a potential violation of a plaintiffs constitutional right has been established, we next decide whether that right was clearly established.

Bates v. Harvey

518 F.3d 1233 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 4, 2008

immunity from this claim because the law was clearly established that he could not enter Mrs. … . . can clearly establish the law.”

Henderson v. Baird

29 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 14, 1994

They are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … The magistrate judge went on to deny qualified immunity on the substantive due process claim because the law was clearly established "that substantive due process required that at least some evidence was needed to support

James v. Bryant, Jr. v. United States Treasury Department, Secret Service, and Jeff Jordan Brian v. Hunter

903 F.2d 717 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 18, 1990

Racansky, 887 F.2d 183 (9th Cir.1989) (reversing district court’s denial of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, finding that alleged conduct did not violate clearly established law), Merriman v. … 5 We conclude that the law was not clearly established.

Spears v. Garcia

263 Conn. 22 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Apr 1, 2003

When a municipal employee is sued, he or she may assert qualified immunity as a common-law defense. … While a benefit accrues to the municipality when the employee successfully establishes qualified immunity, by permitting the municipality to avoid liability for indemnification, the defense is intended to benefit the employee

Owens v. City of New York

183 A.D.3d 903 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 27, 2020

If the officer's actions did not violate a clearly established right or law, or if it was objectively reasonable for an officer to believe that his actions did not violate a clearly established right or law, his or her actions … event, he is entitled to qualified immunity for any such alleged failure ( see Boyd v City of New York , 149 AD3d at 686 ).

Biggs ex rel. Biggs v. Legrand

706 F. App'x 820 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 30, 2017

A plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity must show that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct. … Whether a right was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity is a question of law. Good v. Curtis, 601 F.3d 393, 400-01 (5th Cir. 2010).

Evans v. Gordon

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 3, 2024

, and (2) whether that right was clearly established.” … official violated clearly established federal law.).

Smith v. McCarthy

349 F. App'x 851 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Oct 28, 2009

not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … to qualified immunity.

S.L. Ex Rel. Lenderman v. St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department Board of Police Commissioners

725 F.3d 843 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 5, 2013

State officials enjoy qualified immunity from a § 1983 action if their conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Harris is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , but

Pennington v. Teufel

396 F. Supp. 2d 715 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Aug 26, 2005

Because Plaintiffs have not alleged and cannot show that any of these Defendants violated any clearly established federal law, the Court agrees that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery’ ”) (quoting Mitchell v.

Gregory Samples v. Harris County

900 F.3d 655 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 17, 2018

Our legal inquiry into the availability of qualified immunity fits into a two-step framework. … marshal caselaw asserting to resolve the question of clearly established law.

Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper

320 P.3d 830 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Mar 19, 2012

Qualified immunity is based upon a conception that "where [a public] official's duties legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated, the public interest may be better served by action … Federal qualified immunity is therefore immunity from suit, rather than merely a defense to liability. Id.

Degenhardt v. Bintliff

117 F.4th 747 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 24, 2024

There is a two-part test to overcoming qualified immunity. … The question, then, is whether such right is sufficiently established to defeat qualified immunity. See Argueta, 86 F.4th at 1088. We conclude that the answer is “no.”

Pena ex rel. Estate of Cornell v. Givens

637 F. App'x 775 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 23, 2015

Sheehan, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 1765, 1776 , 191 L.Ed.2d 856 (2015) (“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures … Qualified immunity thus attaches unless the law is clearly established that the defendant’s conduct amounted to a seizure.

Raspardo v. Carlone

770 F.3d 97 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 6, 2014

[and] [t]he second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was clearly established at the time of the violation.” … established rights,” precluding a grant of qualified immunity. 85 F.3d at 67 .

Rexford Kipps, Carol Kipps and Kyle Kipps v. James Caillier, Ray Authement, Nelson J. Schexnayder, Jr., and Nelson Stokley

197 F.3d 765 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 6, 1999

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Even if defendants violated Kipps’s clearly established constitutional right, they are still entitled to qualified immunity if their actions were objectively reasonable.