Case law

Cindy Laine Franklin v. Chris Curry

738 F.3d 1246 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 23, 2013

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields government officials acting within their discretionary authority from liability unless the officials “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Thus, to evaluate their entitlement to qualified immunity, we ask whether Franklin has alleged a violation of a constitutional right and, if so, whether the constitutional right violated was clearly established at the

Al-Mustafa Irshad v. Spann

543 F. Supp. 922 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 19, 1982

The defendants also raise the qualified immunity of Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 , 98 S.Ct. 855 , 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978), as a ground for dismissal. … Fitzgerald,U.S. -,-, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2735-2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (eliminates subjective component of good-faith immunity). This federal immunity defense clearly does not violate due process.

Occupy Columbia v. Haley

922 F. Supp. 2d 524 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Feb 7, 2013

“To escape dismissal of a complaint on qualified immunity grounds, plaintiffs must (1) allege a violation of a right (2) that is clearly established at the time of the violation.” Evans v. … Clearly Established The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires the court to consider “whether the constitutional right violated ‘was clearly established in the specific context of the case — that is, [whether

Gutierrez v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

437 Mass. 396 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Aug 2, 2002

Qualified immunity. … Although the defendants claim qualified immunity as to all claims, the only remaining claim to which qualified immunity may , apply is Daniella’s excessive force claim.

Militello v. Sheriff of the Broward Sheriff's Office

684 F. App'x 809 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 5, 2017

Therefore, they are entitled to qualified immunity. To conclude, we emphasize that we have only addressed whether Deputies Morel and Polk violated clearly established law. … Of course, a district court’s opinion cannot create clearly established case law for purposes of qualified immunity. See Snider, 344 F.3d at 1328 .

Howard v. Kansas City Police Department

570 F.3d 984 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 2, 2009

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from lia *988 bility in a section 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional- or statutory right of which a reasonable person … was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.

Hendricks v. New Albany Police Department

749 F. Supp. 2d 863 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 1, 2010

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not *870 violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The applicability of qualified immunity is determined by a two-part inquiry established in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).

Marcus Evans v. Lorenetta Smith

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 22, 2025

And second, was the right clearly established at the time? If either answer is no, then qualified immunity applies.” Id. (cleaned up). … Under this Court’s precedent on the clearly established prong, officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless “the violative nature of [the] particular conduct is clearly established.” See Kelsay v.

Shaw v. Villanueva

918 F.3d 414 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 11, 2019

III Villanueva and Ebrom argue that since the court granted Phillips and Morin qualified immunity, they should be immune too. … , Shaw has not appealed Phillips' qualified immunity.

Renee Gustafson v. William Adkins

803 F.3d 883 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 16, 2015

Adkins is Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity   Adkins  also  argues  that  the  district  court  erred  in  deny‐ ing his motion for summary judgment based on the defense  of qualified immunity.  … The  doctrine  of  qualified  immunity  “‘protects  govern‐ ment  officials  from  liability  for  civil  damages  when  their  conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or con‐ stitutional  rights  of  which

Jared Fishman v. DC

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 11, 2026

The district court denied the officers qualified immunity, ruling that clearly established law required the officers to release Fishman before they did. … For qualified-immunity purposes, the question is whether the officers’ actions were so manifestly unreasonable as to violate clearly established Fourth Amendment principles.

Syble McDaniel v. Thomas B. Woodard, Iv, Individually and in His Official Capacity as District Judge of Pickens County, Alabama

886 F.2d 311 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 18, 1989

When a defendant advances a defense of qualified immunity, the “plaintiff bears the burden of showing that ‘the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions … Even assuming that talking with the district attorney about a suspected crime is a clearly established constitutional right — and McDaniel cites no case clearly establishing such a right in this circuit — no *315 clearly

Mlodzinski Ex Rel. J.M. v. Lewis

648 F.3d 24 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 2, 2011

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, police officers are protected “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The qualified immunity question before us is whether a reasonably competent officer could have thought, even mistakenly, that in light of the clearly established law at the time, it was reasonable to keep plaintiffs in handcuffs

Wilson v. Wright

998 F. Supp. 650 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 19, 1998

Prison officials performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”' … Thus, in determining whether a state actor is entitled to qualified immunity, a court “must (1) identify the right allegedly violated, (2) determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of

Maria S. v. Garza

912 F.3d 778 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 4, 2019

The qualified immunity analysis has two prongs: (1) whether the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, demonstrate that an officer violated a federal right and (2) whether the right was clearly established … The district court correctly awarded qualified immunity. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court's grant of qualified immunity. Agent Garza does not recall being told this.

Roska v. Peterson

328 F.3d 1230 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 29, 2003

Id. at 341 , 106 S.Ct. 1092 . 67 At the same time, where the right is clearly established, a defendant should only "rarely" be able to succeed with a qualified immunity defense. 27 V-1 Oil Co. v. … Amendment principle was "clearly established."

Theresa Sheets Theresa Sheets, as the Administrator for the Estate of Tiffany Jean Montgomery, Deceased v. Sergeant Howard Mullins

287 F.3d 581 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 25, 2002

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does “not violate clearly established … The second point of analysis is whether a public official’s conduct violated clearly established federal rights.

Gutierrez v. Municipal Court of the Southeast Judicial District

838 F.2d 1031 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 27, 1988

Clearly Established in General In Harlow v. … The Court then set forth its “clearly established” test.

Robert LOMBARDI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF EL CAJON; Steven Shakowski; Does 1 Through 30, Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees

117 F.3d 1117 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 30, 1997

In civil rights actions, qualified immunity turns on the objective unreasonableness of the law enforcement officer’s conduct in light of clearly established law. … Harlow’s emphasis on ‘objective reasonableness’ and cases in which the ‘clearly established law3 at issue contains a subjective element, such as motive or intent.”

Dziekan v. Gaynor

376 F. Supp. 2d 267 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 13, 2005

Thus, qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively reasonable person would have known. … Thus, a qualified immunity defense is established where “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate