Case law

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 ...

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.

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.

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.”

Debbie Latits v. Lowell Phillips

878 F.3d 541 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 27, 2017

Whether that Right was Clearly Established Even if Officer Phillips violated Latits’s constitutional right, he is entitled to qualified immunity if that right was not clearly established at the time of the violation—June … Thus, this case fails to satisfy the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity doctrine. III.

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.

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.

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.

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.’”

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.

Chanon Miller v. Juan Ramirez

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 27, 2025

conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … immunity “raised . . . on a motion to dismiss . . . will be granted if the com- plaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitu- tional right.” 248 F.3d 1117, 1121 (11th Cir. 2001

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

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.

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.

Cucuta v. New York City

25 F. Supp. 3d 400 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 3, 2014

(see cases cited at page 414 above), defendants alternatively are entitled to the protection of qualified immunity because the law is not clearly established and their actions were objectively reasonable. … The Officers are Entitled to Quali-fíed Immunity for the Ping of Cucuta’s Cell Phone Defendants also are entitled to qualified immunity for the pinging of Cueuta’s cell phone because the law is not clearly established and

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

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.

Monique Wilkerson v. Thedious Seymour

736 F.3d 974 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 30, 2013

DISCUSSION “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials acting within their discretionary authority are immune from suit unless the official’s conduct violates clearly established federal statutory … To avoid summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, the plaintiff’s allegations, supported by admissible evidence, must demonstrate both (1) a constitutional violation and (2) that the violation was clearly established

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.

Harry A. Bendiburg, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Carl Bendiburg, Deceased v. Pamela S. Dempsey

19 F.3d 557 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 21, 1994

The court did not use the term “qualified immunity,” nor did it suggest that the law was not clearly established. Furthermore, the court submitted a special interrogatory to the jury. … The law, as established by the Anderson case in the Supreme Court, is that qualified immunity — inquiry for the qualified immunity is whether the objective, albeit, fact-specific question, whether a reasonable official could