Case law

Scott Lee Rudlaff v. Brandon Gillispie

791 F.3d 638 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 2015

Remember that qualified immunity (as we’ve been reminded again and again) is an “exacting standard” that gives officers lots of leeway, requiring their conduct to violate clearly established law to defeat the defense. … Because the officers acted constitutionally — and because even if they didn’t, by all accounts they didn’t clearly act unconstitutionally — they are protected by qualified immunity. We reverse.

Ozga v. Elliot

150 F. Supp. 3d 178 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 21, 2015

That is because a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if “(1) his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was objectively … Ozga had no clearly established right not to be temporarily detained as he was in the police car, and it follows that none of the defendants acted objectively unreasonably.

Zitta v. Graham

996 F. Supp. 2d 272 · District Court, D. Vermont · Jan 24, 2014

As long as the conduct was “objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken,” qualified immunity applies. Id. … As explained above, Officer Graham is entitled to qualified immunity because the point at which an officer’s conduct reaches state action in these circumstances has not been clearly established.

Mallas v. Kolak

721 F. Supp. 748 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 13, 1989

of their qualified immunity. … Moreover, the court finds that officials sued for constitutional violations which are not clearly established do not lose their qualified immunity merely because their conduct also violates some statutory or administrative

Williams v. Schismenos

258 F. Supp. 3d 842 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 28, 2017

Qualified Immunity Analysis The defendant officers maintain that qualified immunity protects them from liability for all federal claims asserted against them in their individual capacities. … The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary actions from civil damages liability if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Shepard v. Irving

204 F. Supp. 2d 902 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 5, 2002

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages in Section 1983 actions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … a clearly established right of which Defendants should have known.

Acklin v. City of Inkster

93 F. Supp. 3d 778 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 20, 2015

Specifically, the Defendants contend they should be entitled to qualified immunity because they contend they did not violate any statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established and of which a reasonable person … As discussed, Acklin’s Fourth Amendment claim for excessive force while handcuffed is “clearly established;” thus, Plaintiff meets that prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See Meirthew, 417 Fed.Appx. at 499 .

Bowen Ex Rel. Estate of Bowen v. Warden, Baldwin State Prison

826 F.3d 1312 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 22, 2016

Finally, the three defendant officials maintained that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they were acting within their discretionary authority and their conduct was not in violation of clearly established … and Officer Davis are “not entitled to qualified immunity by showing that the facts alleged make out a violation of a constitutional right and that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of [the]

Baillargeon v. Drug Enforcement Administration

707 F. Supp. 2d 305 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Apr 12, 2010

Ashcraft’s Objection In her objection, Ashcraft disputes Judge Almond’s conclusion as to the ‘clearly-established right’ prong of the qualified immunity test. … The Court explained: ‘Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that

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.

Dang v. Ehredt

95 Wash. App. 670 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 17, 1999

were lawful in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed. 12 The standard is one of objective legal reasonableness, that is, whether the officer acted reasonably under settled law under the … Dang’s assertion that the issue of qualified immunity merges with the issue of probable cause, so that a finding that an officer lacked probable cause to arrest is dispositive of the issue of qualified immunity. 12 Anderson

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

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).

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).

Beverly Spencer v. Sheriff Jonathan Benison

5 F.4th 1222 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 16, 2021

It found that Benison was not entitled to qualified immunity on Spencer’s individual capacity claims because he “failed to establish that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority” when he ordered Spencer … 18-14397 Date Filed: 07/16/2021 Page: 10 of 21 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 3, 2026

in question . . . was clearly established.” … were clearly established.

Barbara Bays v. Montmorency Cty., Mich.

874 F.3d 264 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 20, 2017

Because a triable issue of fact remains over whether Sigler violated Shane’s clearly established Fourteenth Amendment right to sufficient treatment for a serious medical problem, we affirm the district court’s qualified- … In a qualified-immunity case, we ask two questions: Did the officer violate the injured party’s constitutional rights? If so, was the right clearly established at the time? Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009).

Carlos D. Goad and Robert J. Wuchich v. Betty Mitchell, Jacqui Visintine, and M.A. Gilbert

297 F.3d 497 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2002

Qualified Immunity and Heightened Pleading Requirements In civil suits for money damages, government officials are entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts that do “not violate clearly established [federal] statutory … a complaint adequately alleges violation of clearly established law.

Calabretta v. Floyd

189 F.3d 808 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 26, 1999

They claim qualified immunity on the ground that there is no clearly established principle to the contrary. The principle they urged is too broad. … It is not clear that a conflict among other circuits would create qualified immunity where clearly established law in this circuit would preclude it, 19 but even if it could, these cases would not establish such an open question

Francisco Cheveras Pacheco v. Juan M. Rivera Gonzalez

809 F.2d 125 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 13, 1987

Defendants moved for summary judgment on the damages claim on the theory that they had not violated clearly established law and that hence they were entitled to qualified immunity. … The qualified immunity question in this case is whether it was clearly established in 1985 that a transitory employee with only a subjective expectation of permanent employment was entitled to the protections of due process