Case law

McGowan v. United States

825 F.3d 118 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 7, 2016

The issue of qualified immunity was presented in the district court, has been fully briefed on appeal, and turns on *124 the purely legal question of whether McGowan alleged a violation of a clearly established right. … Thus, in light of the absence of authority clearly establishing the claimed right, we are constrained to hold that Rivers is entitled to qualified immunity from McGowan’s Bivens claim.

Rioux v. City of Atlanta, Ga.

520 F.3d 1269 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 18, 2008

However, the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis asks the question “in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.” … Because pre-existing law did not provide fair warning to Appellees that demoting Rioux under these circumstances would violate clearly established federal law, Ap-pellees are entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Rodriguez Vazquez v. Lopez-Martinez

253 F. Supp. 2d 164 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 21, 2003

The Defendants raised the issue of their qualified immunity in the Answer to the Complaint (affirmative defense). 2. The Defendants had the burden to prove their affirmative defense of qualified immunity. 3. … The law on politically motivated terminations is clearly established. 6.

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

Connelly v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

484 F.3d 343 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 10, 2007

in light of the clearly established law at the time of the incident. … Conversely, Connelly, in her response to Fant’s motion, pointed to law and facts tending to establish her claim that Fant’s decision to terminate her was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law, carrying

Walker v. White

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 27, 2015

The district court dismissed on the ground that the State Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

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.

Duckett v. City of Cedar Park

950 F.2d 272 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 10, 1992

The Supreme Court held that the first inquiry in the examination of a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff “allege[d] the violation of a clearly *277 established constitutional right.” … . § 1983 , holding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because defendants “could not reasonably be charged with knowledge that they might be violating a clearly established right of the Plaintiff.”

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.

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.

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.

Benavides v. Nunez

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 16, 2025

Qualified immunity shields an officer from liability if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. … To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, 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?

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).

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.

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

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

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