Case law

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.”

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.

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).

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.”

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

France v. Hunter

368 S.W.3d 279 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 2012

from suit under the doctrines of qualified immunity, official immunity, and judicial immunity. … Public officials are provided qualified immunity for their official acts unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established

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

Chalmers v. The City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 16, 2023

established so qualified immunity applies); Singleton v. … Qualified immunity also depends on the resolution of material facts.

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.