Case law

Clayton Franklin v. Franklin County, Arkansas

956 F.3d 1060 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 24, 2020

The Griffiths are entitled to qualified immunity on their federal claim if their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would know. See White v. Pauly, 137 S. … Broadly defined rights by themselves do not create clearly established law outside an "obvious case," see Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S.

Young v. Lacy

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 28, 2018

See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 243 (holding that “petitioners [were] entitled to qualified immunity because [they] . . . did not violate clearly established law.”). … establish, it is unnecessary for this court to analyze this portion of the qualified immunity inquiry.

Hyman v. Morris

320 F. Supp. 3d 707 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 14, 2018

applicable standard for ascertaining whether a right was "clearly established" for the purposes of evaluating qualified immunity: "A Government official's conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time of the … establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity."

Parrish v. Ball

594 F.3d 993 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 10, 2010

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in their individual capacity so long as the official has not violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.”

Ward v. Olson

939 F. Supp. 2d 956 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Apr 8, 2013

Excessive Force “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects [law enforcement] officers from personal liability under § 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which … Clearly Established Constitutional Right A right is clearly established if “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” White v.

Moschetti v. Office of the Inspector General

District Court, E.D. Virginia · Nov 26, 2024

Even if the Pickering factors weighed more in Moschetti’s favor, Westfall would be entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that the factors would favor an employee over an organization akin … See Brickey, 828 F.3d at 304 (holding qualified immunity was warranted when balancing of the employee’s and employer’s interests were not clearly established). 16 a substantial factor

Estiverne v. Esernio-Jenssen

833 F. Supp. 2d 356 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 23, 2011

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for constitutional violations when their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Qualified immunity A.E.’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable investigatory testing has been clearly established since at least Tenenbaum , in 1999.

Anna Chernyy v. Monty Roesler

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 11, 2026

We assume these facts are true, but they do not affect our finding that Moore is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law. 3 Chernyy also argues that “sexual assault … Moore is similarly entitled to qualified immunity for the failure to train claim because he did not violate any clearly established right “of which a reasonable person would have known.” Parrish v.

Limone v. Condon

372 F.3d 39 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 14, 2004

Qualified immunity is a judge-made doctrine. … Having erected this straw man, the appellants then shred it: although Brady was decided prior to 1967, they assert that it was not clearly established then (indeed, it may not be clearly established today) that the

Kaplan v. Pointer

501 A.2d 1269 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 1985

. at 2701 (absolute immunity deemed “a functionally mandated incident of the President’s unique office”), while Harlow held that a presidential aide was entitled only to a qualified immunity, 457 U.S. at 809-14, 102 S.Ct. … Forsyth, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (granting former Attorney General of the United States qualified rather than absolute immunity from suit for damages arising out of allegedly unconstitutional conduct

Military Circle Pet Center No. 94, Inc. v. Cobb County

665 F. Supp. 909 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · May 20, 1987

Because plaintiff has presented evidence that defendants committed acts in violation of plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional and statutory rights, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiff … Because a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity if he violates clearly established constitutional or statutory rights, defendants’ argument regarding Defendant Head’s "prosecutorial immunity” and lack of unconstitutional

Ecclesiastical Order of the ISM of AM, Inc. v. Chasin

653 F. Supp. 1200 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 24, 1986

Defend.ants claim that they have satisfied the requisite test for qualified immunity; to wit, the “objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v. … Agents of the IRS do not have absolute immunity — only qualified immunity — from suit. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985).

Pleasant View Baptist Church v. Andy Beshear

78 F.4th 286 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 14, 2023

clearly established in the future. … To defeat the Governor’s qualified-immunity defense, they must prove that Tandon’s legal framework was “clearly established at the time” that the Governor acted. Wesby, 138 S.

Santos v. Zabbara

984 F. Supp. 2d 106 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 28, 2013

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields Defendants, as “government officials performing discretionary functions,” from liability for damages under Section 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … “An officer conducting a search is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 243-44 , 129 S.Ct. 808 .

Beltran v. City of El Paso

367 F.3d 299 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 15, 2004

In the absence of a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Amador is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. c. … of the clearly established legal rules at the time of the incident, and qualified immunity protects her from any civil liability.

Wilbur Barnes v. Tony Wright

449 F.3d 709 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 2, 2006

Qualified Immunity “[T]he Supreme Court [has] held that ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Second, we consider whether the violation involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Martin v. City of Oceanside

205 F. Supp. 2d 1142 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 7, 2002

However, the Court finds that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate a clearly established right of plaintiffs. … Therefore, the officers did not violate a clearly established right of plaintiffs. The *1153 officers are entitled to qualified immunity as to this claim. 3.

Olivo Gonzalez v. Teacher's Retirement Board

208 F. Supp. 2d 163 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 12, 2002

Plaintiffs counter by arguing that the doctrine of qualified immunity does not protect the Defendants from a violation of clearly established constitutional or statutory rights, and that the Court should not abstain pursuant … Qualified Immunity Defendants invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity in support of their motion to dismiss.

Mitchell v. Cole

176 Mich. App. 200 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 1989

In determining if there is qualified immunity, the court considers: 1) whether the alleged conduct establishes a constitutional violation, and 2) whether the constitutional standard was clearly established at the time in … If the undisputed facts show that the defendant’s conduct violated no clearly established constitutional standards, qualified immunity applies as a matter of law.

Frank Snider, III v. Matthew Peters

752 F.3d 1149 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 30, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability and the burdens of litigation in a § 1983 action unless the official's conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable … ; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation."