Case law

Morales v. City of North Las Vegas

272 F. Supp. 3d 1216 · District Court, D. Nevada · Jul 26, 2017

Qualified immunity protects law enforcement 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 have … This argument, without more, would likely fail the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry because of the "longstanding principle that clearly established law should not be defined at a high level of generality ...

Chambers v. North Rockland Central School District

815 F. Supp. 2d 753 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 27, 2011

by qualified immunity.” … “[E]ven where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him at

Kinney v. Weaver

367 F.3d 337 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 24, 2002

Not long after Harlow , the Court refined the qualified immunity standard by defining “clearly established” in a way that encompasses the “objective reasonableness” inquiry: To be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified … Yet, at the same time, an official does not lose qualified immunity merely because a certain right is clearly established in the abstract.

Gionis v. Headwest, Inc.

799 So. 2d 416 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 16, 2001

Gionis subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment as to Count VIII, on the basis that he was immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Once it is established that the acts in question were discretionary governmental functions, the second element requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the government official violated the plaintiffs clearly established

Raby v. Baptist Medical Center

21 F. Supp. 2d 1341 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 9, 1998

An official is entitled to qualified immunity if he is performing discretionary functions and his actions do “‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Therefore, Mangum’s actions violated clearly established Eleventh Circuit precedent.

Dean Birkeland v. John Jorgenson

971 F.3d 787 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 20, 2020

and killed him–our precedent compels the conclusion that the officers’ use of deadly force in this situation was not a violation of a clearly established right. … established right.”

Patrick v. Miller

953 F.2d 1240 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 27, 1992

These clearly established principles are insufficient, however, to defeat Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on grounds of qualified immunity. … public officials lose immunity in the face of clearly established law.

Ray Scott v. Tobias J. Tempelmeyer

867 F.3d 1067 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 16, 2017

Tempelmeyer appeals the denial of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields a government official from suit when his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Raju v. Rhodes

809 F. Supp. 1229 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Nov 20, 1992

Consequently, in assessing defendant’s right to qualified immunity, the court must determine “whether any of these claims rests upon such clearly established law that the defendant^ ha[s] forfeited [his] qualified immunity … Raju cannot establish, in order to overcome Dr. Rhodes’ qualified immunity, the violation of a clearly established constitutional right in regard to his substantive due process claim. C.

McCoy v. Webster

47 F.3d 404 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 14, 1995

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary duties from civil trial and liability if their conduct violates no "clearly established statutory or 3 This action was filed … Because the law was not clearly established that Brown's conduct, based on the information he possessed, violated McCoy's Eighth Amendment right, Brown is entitled to qualified immunity. 4 Under some circumstances

Notariano v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board

266 F. Supp. 3d 919 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jul 17, 2017

allegations are sufficient, Plaintiff has failed to plead a violation of any clearly established constitutional right. … “[I]f the pleadings on their face show an unreasonable violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the defense of qualified immunity will not sustain a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).” 26 “[A] plaintiff

TM v. Noblitt

650 So. 2d 1340 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Jan 12, 1995

We are of the opinion that the lower court correctly articulated the law of qualified public official immunity, but find that the dismissal of this cause was premature. … The issue of common law qualified immunity was recently revisited in Womble v. Singing River Hosp., 618 So.2d 1252 (Miss. 1993).

Linda L. Harrell, Individually, as Personal Representative, and as Surviving Spouse of Larry Gene Harrell, Deceased v. Decatur County, Ga.

22 F.3d 1570 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 22, 1994

Thus, if the law was clearly established, the qualified immunity privilege “ordinarily should fail, because a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” … Deputy Morris The focus of our inquiry into deputy Morris’s assertion of qualified immunity is whether his actions violated clearly established law. Rich, 841 F.2d at 1564 .

Whitney Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich.

139 F.4th 495 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 30, 2025

As we will explain, the complaint here does not establish the defense of qualified immunity because Hodges has alleged facts making plausible the inference that the officers violated Honestie’s clearly established Fourth … Qualified Immunity Having determined the proper scope of the record on appeal, we must now determine whether Hodges has plausibly alleged that the officers violated Honestie’s clearly established rights.

Bakutis v. Dean

129 F.4th 299 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 25, 2025

But ultimately, qualified immunity was preserved because it was not clearly established whether the use of force was reasonable in response to a call claiming a child could be physically ill. … A panel of this court found that the officers violated the Constitution but granted qualified immunity because the violation was not clearly established. Linicomn, 902 F.3d at 537, 539–40.

Ratliff v. Dekalb County

62 F.3d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 17, 1995

the applicable law was clearly established. … The right to be free from retaliation is clearly established as a first amendment right and as a statutory right under Title VII; but no clearly established right exists under the equal protection clause to be free from retaliation

Donovan v. City Of Milwaukee

17 F.3d 944 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 18, 1994

II. 5 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, "governmental officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … are entitled to qualified immunity.

Young ex rel. Bucy v. Jefferson County Sheriff

318 P.3d 458 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Jan 13, 2014

by the legislature, and both clearly indicate that the good faith of any person who qualifies for immunity "shall be presumed." … To hold otherwise would impermissibly defile the legislature's attempt to immunize qualifying law enforcement officers from liability.

LeSUEUR-RICHMOND SLATE CORP. v. FEHRER

752 F. Supp. 2d 713 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Nov 3, 2010

When evaluating a qualified immunity claim, the district court should generally first determine whether a right “would have been violated on the facts alleged; [and] ... second ... whether the right was clearly established … Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless they transgress rights that are “clearly established.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (2001).

Arlene Martin v. Dana Marriner, Arlene Martin v. Dana Marriner

904 F.2d 120 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 8, 1990

Nonetheless, it held that the FmHA officials were entitled to qualified immunity. 825 F.2d at 1553-54 . … Culbreath, 799 F.2d at 1250 (right to notice of an alternative proceeding to an FmHA liquidation not clearly established).