Case law

Powell v. Johnson

405 F.3d 652 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 2, 2005

The trial court also denied the Appellants qualified immunity. 3 On appeal, the Appellants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because the decision to demote Powell was reasonable in light of clearly established … Rainey is therefore entitled to qualified immunity, because doing nothing wrong is not a violation of clearly established law.

Arthur Mitchell v. City of Naples

895 F.3d 365 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 10, 2018

“Denial of summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity is immediately appealable to the extent that the question on appeal is whether the undisputed facts amount to a violation of clearly established law.” … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 4  Case: 17-40737 Document: 00514548130

Hayes v. Mercer County

217 N.J. Super. 614 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 21, 1987

In our discussion of the federal qualified immunity, we stated why the investigator acted in good faith here. … Plaintiffs' remaining points are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Affirmed.

National Rifle Association of America v. Maria T. Vullo

49 F.4th 700 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 22, 2022

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from suits for money damages unless their conduct violates clearly established law of which a reasonable … Was the Law Clearly Established?

Byrd v. Haas

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 19, 2020

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (finding that government officials sued in their individual capacity are entitled to seek qualified immunity unless their actions violated "clearly established statutory or … clearly established law.

Dominique Ramsey v. David Rivard

110 F.4th 860 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 1, 2024

Rivard argues that qualified immunity bars the plaintiffs’ unduly suggestive identification claim because they cannot show that Rivard’s actions violated their clearly established rights. (Appellant Br. 49.) … First, Rivard gains no immunity for violations of clearly established law by following the prosecutor’s advice. See Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 495 (1991).

Wesley v. Rigney

913 F. Supp. 2d 313 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Dec 18, 2012

Defendant is also entitled to qualified immunity because her actions were ob *324 jectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. … However, the Court also recognized that this rule was not clearly established after Hartman and, therefore, the officer-petitioner was entitled to qualified immunity.

Finch v. City of New York

591 F. Supp. 2d 349 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 19, 2008

This Court held, inter alia, that any right to a prompt administrative hearing was not clearly established, entitling the individual defendants to qualified immunity. 4 *354 B. … Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability if the officials’ conduct “ ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Gill v. City of Milwaukee

850 F.3d 335 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 7, 2017

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ … ” the Supreme Court has rejected in the qualified immunity context.

Dodds v. Richardson

614 F.3d 1185 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 6, 2010

As Justice Thomas explained: In conducting qualified immunity analysis ..., courts do not merely ask whether, taking the plaintiffs allegations as true, the plaintiffs clearly established rights were violated. … For instance, an allegation that Defendant A violated a plaintiffs clearly established rights does nothing to overcome Defendant B’s assertion of qualified immunity, absent some allegation that Defendant B was responsible

Antonio Smith v. John Kind

140 F.4th 359 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 30, 2025

But the Supreme Court has cautioned courts against reason- ing from broad principles when considering whether a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. See Kisela, 584 U.S. at 104. … Sheriff of Cook County, 993 F.3d 981, 988 (7th Cir. 2021) (“The prong-two clearly-established-law assess- ment does not require a case with identical factual circum- stances, lest qualified immunity become absolute immun-

Hall v. United States

704 F.2d 246 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 25, 1983

Most recently the Supreme Court refined the limits of qualified, good faith immunity, placing “[r]eliance on the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” … Under this approach summary judgment should issue on the grounds of qualified, good faith immunity if the official’s conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights at the time the challenged

Brown v. United States

851 F.2d 615 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 21, 1988

Since Granata’s remedy of dismissal for properly established qualified immunity remains open, mandamus is not available. I. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

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.”

Cummerlander v. Patriot Preparatory Academy Inc.

86 F. Supp. 3d 808 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 9, 2015

’ argument that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … In the context of school search and seizure, the Supreme Court in Safford set forth the standard for a clearly established law: A school official searching a student is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established

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.

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.

Parkway Bank & Trust v. City of Darien

43 Ill. App. 3d 400 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 17, 1976

On this basis an award of damages against public officials with qualified immunity “would be inimical to the efficient functioning of government.” (Rasmussen v. City of Lake Forest, 404 F. Supp. 148, 159 .) … Supp. 148, 159 , states that even where government officials are granted qualified immunity they are still absolutely immune “to damages in the absence of malice ° * * whenever at the time of the action a substantial question

Nelson v. Silverman

888 F. Supp. 1041 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 6, 1995

The Bothke court merely assumed that there is a clearly established right of freedom from abusive tax collection activities for the purposes of dealing with a qualified immunity issue. … A defendant would be immune from suit if he could establish that his actions were objectively reasonable by reference to clearly established law. Harlow v.

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.