Case law

Pallottino v. City of Rio Rancho

31 F.3d 1023 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 4, 1994

The doctrine of qualified immunity gives the Officers qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit unless they violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Once a defendant to a § 1983 action raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show both facts and law to establish that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Krout v. Goemmer

583 F.3d 557 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 6, 2009

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability when his conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … That is the ‘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

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.

Betances v. Fischer

519 F. App'x 39 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 4, 2013

Arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that the law was not clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). … The district court denied the motions, ruling that plaintiffs’ rights became clearly established when this Court decided Earley v.

Bell v. City of Cleveland

548 F. Supp. 2d 444 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 19, 2008

In other words, any “objectively reasonable” action by a state officer, as assessed in the light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct at issue, will be protected by qualified immunity. … and 2) that the right violated was clearly established.

Dunlap v. Hilgenkamp

82 F. Supp. 2d 1052 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Jan 25, 2000

. § 1983 for their performance of discretionary functions are entitled to a qualified immunity defense if they prove that their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Qualified immunity is a question of law.

Dixon v. Von Blanckensee

994 F.3d 95 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 12, 2021

She argues that, as a matter of law, King has failed to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and she is thus entitled to qualified immunity. We agree. … and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Moore, William v. Hartman, Michael

388 F.3d 871 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 9, 2004

TATEL, Circuit Judge: Qualified immunity generally shields public officials from civil damages ‘‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Accordingly, Moore has alleged the violation of a constitutional right, precluding summary judgment under the first element of the qualified immunity test. Was the Law Clearly Established?

Scott v. City of Columbus, Unpublished Decision (3-30-2001)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2001

of clearly established law and the information that he possessed. … defendant's conduct did indeed violate clearly established rights).

Willie Flowers v. Nicholas Renfro

46 F.4th 631 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 19, 2022

“Because qualified immunity pro- tects the public officer from the expense and distraction of having to stand trial when the conduct in question did not vi- olate clearly established law, the unavailability of an immedi- … If a determination of qualified immunity in a summary judgment motion depends on the resolution of fact questions, the order denying qualified immunity generally is not appeal- able. Johnson v.

Redd v. City of Enterprise

140 F.3d 1378 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 13, 1998

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from a section 1983 damages action if his actions did not violate clearly established law. See Thornton 3 No appeal is taken from this holding. v. … It is clearly established that an arrest made without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment. See Von Stein v. Brescher, 904 F.2d 572, 579 (11th Cir.1990).

Linda Surratt v. Brian McClarin

851 F.3d 389 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 14, 2017

EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, Circuit Judge: In this qualified immunity case, the question on appeal is whether—in light of clearly established law at the time of the incident—officers acted objectively unreasonably when they … But qualified immunity insulates those 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 would

Patricia Juanita Wate v. Kenneth Kubler

839 F.3d 1012 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 12, 2016

force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, that was clearly established at the time. … Qualified Immunity AQualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages for torts committed while performing discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory

Clark v. Evans

840 F.2d 876 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 25, 1988

Since the law on this point was not clearly established at the time Sharp was shot, defendants Coleman and New-some can properly claim a defense of qualified immunity as against the disabling force theory of liability. … Since there is no clearly-established law regarding whether an insane person can be shot during an escape attempt, defendants can appropriately raise a qualified immunity defense. *883 As for the theory that Sharp’s aetion

Hourigan v. Cassidy

131 N.M. 141 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 2001

They contend that the trial court erred in denying their claim of qualified immunity. … “Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 as long as ‘their conduct [did] not violate clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights

Mark v. Williams

45 Wash. App. 182 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 27, 1986

The test enunciated in Harlow has effectively eliminated the subjective component of qualified immunity, establishing a purely objective standard. 4 The defendants had a right to believe they could operate as they did since … We note that this qualified immunity created in Bivens, unlike the qualified immunity enunciated later in Harlow for § 1983 actions, is based on both a good faith (subjective) and reasonableness (objective) test.

Serra v. United States General Services Administration

664 F. Supp. 798 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 14, 1987

The standard is an objective one: “whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.’ … Thus, for Diamond and Ink to be stripped of their qualified immunity from suit, it must have been clearly established at the time they acted that Serra possessed a cognizable constitutional liberty or property interest in

Jones v. City & County of Denver

854 F.2d 1206 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 12, 1988

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields governmental officials from personal liability unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … He relies on Colorado statutory and decisional law to argue that clearly established law requires arrest warrants in all cases.

J. Gilliam v. Kenneth Sealey

932 F.3d 216 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 30, 2019

Because Appellees have alleged facts sufficient to show that the officers violated their clearly established Fourth Amendment and due process rights, we affirm the district court's denial of qualified immunity. I. A. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for violations of constitutional rights so long as they could reasonably believe that their conduct did not violate clearly established law. Harlow v.