Case law

Edwards v. Department of Transportation

66 Wash. App. 552 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 22, 1992

Qualified Immunity. … On the other hand, if the law was clearly established and the conduct of the official is violative of an individual's statutory or constitutional rights the immunity defense should fail. Harlow v.

Falkner v. Houston

974 F. Supp. 757 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Mar 6, 1997

The only issue to be decided by the court “is purely a legal one: whether the facts alleged (by the plaintiff, or, in some cases, the defendant) support a claim of violation of clearly established law.” … For the right to be clearly established, “[t]he 'contours' of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right ...

Louise Arnold v. Charles McClinton

112 F.4th 598 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 14, 2024

“In a § 1983 action, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless: (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established.” Ching ex rel. Jordan v. … In these circumstances, we conclude that Deputy McClinton is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct in this case did not violate McDaniel’s clearly established rights. See Plumhoff v.

Alison Dreith v. City of St. Louis, Missouri

55 F.4th 1145 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 15, 2022

Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit in a § 1983 action unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable official would have known. … In any event, the argument does not undermine the district court’s conclusion that Dreith’s right to be free from a retaliatory use of force was clearly established at the time of the incident. D. Ct.

Good v. Curtis

601 F.3d 393 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 23, 2010

immunity defense if he procures false identification by unlawful means . . . for such activity violates clearly established constitutional principles.” 849 F.2d at 1559. … in light of clearly established law.”

Johnson v. Newburgh Enlarged School District

239 F.3d 246 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 31, 2001

In this action, the defendants assert only the first basis — that no clearly established right was violated — in arguing for qualified immunity. 2 Of course, determining whether a right is “clearly established” is not subject … ” qualified immunity issue.

L.G. v. Keisha Edwards

990 F.3d 1145 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 18, 2021

Qualified immunity generally protects public officials from § 1983 lawsuits where the officials' conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … We often describe the resolution of a qualified immunity issue as involving two questions—whether the official's conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right, and whether that right was clearly established.

Bledsoe v. Willis

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 27, 2023

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity “if there is no violation, or if the conduct did not violate law clearly established at the time.” Id. … Nov. 16, 2022) (rejecting the qualified immunity defense regarding clearly established law for § 1983 malicious prosecution claims); Crider v. Williams, No. 21-13797, 2022 WL 3867541, at *8 (11th Cir.

Buckner v. SHETTERLEY

621 F. Supp. 2d 1300 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Dec 15, 2008

DISCUSSION Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence at trial to defeat Defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity and that it was not “clearly established” that her conduct violated Plaintiffs … For purposes of qualified immunity, the Eleventh Circuit has identified three sources of “clearly established” law.

Donovan v. Briggs

250 F. Supp. 2d 242 · District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 26, 2003

Qualified immunity shields public officials “from civil damages liability insofar as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,’ Harlow … was not clearly established in the context of the actions giving rise to the suit); Warlick v.

Frederick Jackson v. City of Madison

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 28, 2026

We reiterate that to defeat qualified immunity, a plaintiff must point us to law that is established clearly enough “that every reasonable official would interpret it to establish the particular rule the plaintiff seeks to … Officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless “(1) they violated a federal stat- utory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

United States v. Allebach

526 F.3d 385 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 21, 2008

Motion to Suppress Allebach moved to suppress the fruits of the search of his residence, arguing that the trash contents were insufficient to establish probable cause. … We find the district court did not clearly err in determining Allebach’s possession of crack cocaine was part of the same course of conduct as his possession with intent to manufacture crack cocaine.

Rodgers v. Horsley

39 F.3d 308 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 5, 1994

DISCUSSION Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the federal “rights” allegedly violated were “clearly established.” Barts v. … Instead, the question in this case, as in all qualified immunity cases, is fact specific: in May 1991, was it clearly established in this circuit that it was unconstitutional for a mental institution to fail to supervise

Hynson v. City of Chester

827 F.2d 932 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 1, 1987

The test for government officials to establish the good faith necessary for qualified immunity was recently set out by the Supreme Court. … clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.

William LaPlante v. City of Battle Creek, Mich.

30 F.4th 572 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 8, 2022

Analysis In reviewing an order denying qualified immunity, the Court considers (1) whether an “official’s conduct . . . violate[d] a constitutional right,” and, if so, (2) whether “that right was . . . clearly established … Clearly Established “Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for civil damages if either the official’s conduct did not violate a constitutional right or if that right was not clearly established

Baltas v. Chapdelaine

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 3, 2025

DISCUSSION Plaintiffs argue that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated clearly established law. … Our caselaw does not clearly establish that a few hours without a flushing toilet violates the Eighth Amendment, so we affirm the grant of qualified immunity as to these claims. C.

Harris v. Roderick

126 F.3d 1189 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 25, 1997

In order to determine whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, we engage in a two-pronged inquiry: “1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? … The Rules directly infringed on the clearly established constitutional rights of those at whom they were aimed, including Harris. There is no qualified immunity for such conduct, either.

City Union Mission, Inc. v. Mike Sharp

36 F.4th 810 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 10, 2022

The district court granted summary judgment, resolving its qualified immunity analysis on the clearly established prong and finding that Sheriff Sharp was entitled to qualified immunity. See R. Doc. 135, at 5. … established at the time of the infraction, the defendant-officer is entitled to qualified immunity.

Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming

297 Mich. App. 446 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 2012

Therefore, when the immunity granted in MCL 333.26424(a) is read in context with MCL 333.26422(b) and (c), it is plain that the immunity was not intended to exempt qualified medical-marijuana users from federal prosecutions … The CSA provisions do not preempt the MMMA’s grant of immunity as found in MCL 333.26424(a) because it is well established that Congress cannot require the states to enforce federal law.

Robert Kennedy v. City of Cincinnati

595 F.3d 327 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 16, 2010

Page 7 Kennedy failed to show that his clearly established rights were violated. … alleged by the plaintiff constitute a violation of clearly established law.”).