Case law

Cannavino v. Rock Ohio Caesars Cleveland, L.L.C.

2017 Ohio 380 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 2017

Williams contends that he is shielded from such claims under qualified immunity. … if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Donald Tangwall v. Thomas Stuckey

135 F.3d 510 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 2, 1998

Again, we shall reserve addressing whether Detective Stuck-ey acted in violation of clearly established law and, alternatively, the merits of his qualified immunity defense until later in this opinion. … We hold that Stuckey did not violate a clearly established law and that he is entitled to qualified immunity and dismissal of the lawsuit against him. The judgment of the district court is REVERSED. 1 .

Tisdale v. Gravitt

51 F. Supp. 3d 1378 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 30, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defendants also move for summary judgment on Plaintiffs on the alternative grounds of the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … establish a constitutional violation; and second, whether the right violated was clearly established.

Walt v. State

751 P.2d 1345 · Alaska Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1988

on the qualified immunity defense. … Haley, 687 P.2d 305 at 316 (Alaska 1984), is entitled to qualified immunity unless his action violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

Eaton v. Meneley

180 F. Supp. 2d 1247 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 9, 2002

immunity from suit on plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims because plaintiffs have not alleged facts which establish that he violated any of their clearly established rights. … Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court eliminated the subjective, or intent, element of qualified immunity, and held that a plaintiff could defeat a claim of qualified immunity only by demonstrating that the defendant violated clearly

Lambert v. Town of Stringtown

63 O.B.A.J. 2132 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 14, 1992

They sought summary judgment based on the defense of qualified immunity. The trial court overruled their motion and the defendants appealed. … The qualified immunity doctrine may be stated thus: “[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Fernandors v. District of Columbia

382 F. Supp. 2d 63 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 15, 2005

Stressing the threshold nature of the qualified immunity inquiry, the Court observed as follows: A necessary concomitant to the determination of whether the constitutional right asserted by a plaintiff is “clearly established … Therefore, the only question for the Court is whether Officer Fenton’s alleged conduct violated plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights so that he would not have qualified immunity.

United States Ex Rel. Burlbaw v. Orenduff

400 F. Supp. 2d 1276 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 15, 2005

If Plaintiffs can do so, they must then show the statutory right was clearly established. Id. … Since Plaintiffs have failed to raise an issue of fact concerning the existence of an FCA violation, the Court need not address the “clearly established law” aspect of the qualified-immunity doctrine.

Adam Urda v. Jeffrey Sokso

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 22, 2025

Yet qualified immunity shields police from such claims unless they (1) violated a right (2) that was clearly established at the time. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … The District Court denied qualified immunity because it held that it is clearly established that people cannot be arrest- ed or prosecuted without probable cause.

Geraldine Livermore, Personal Representative for the Estate of Roland E. Rohm, Deceased v. Daniel Lubelan and Jerry Ellsworth

476 F.3d 397 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 7, 2007

by the plaintiff constitute a violation of clearly established law.”). … To defeat qualified immunity, the plaintiff *404 must show that the defendant had notice that the manner in which the force was used had been previously proscribed: [T]here is no doubt that [precedent] clearly establishes

In re Covid-Related Restrictions on Religious Services

Supreme Court of Delaware · Aug 1, 2024

Section 1983 and Qualified Immunity. … A plaintiff’s burden under qualified immunity does not end when a constitutional violation is pinpointed; it rests on whether the official should have known that their actions violated a clearly established constitutional

Cox v. Thompson

635 F. Supp. 594 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · May 12, 1986

First plaintiff contends that the qualified immunity doctrine does not apply in this case because the rights asserted by the plaintiff are clearly established constitutional rights. … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DEFENSE “Government officials performing discretionary functions, as here, are shielded from liability for damages in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit unless their conduct violated clearly established statutory

Greene v. Cabral

323 F. Supp. 3d 96 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 15, 2018

"An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was 'clearly established' at the time of the challenged conduct." … For a right to have been clearly established, such that qualified immunity does not shield an official from liability, "the right's contours [must have been] sufficiently definite that any reasonable official *107 in the

Skatemore, Inc. v. Gretchen Whitmer

40 F.4th 727 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 19, 2022

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Assuming Plaintiffs alleged an unconstitutional taking, they have failed to show that the alleged constitutional violation was clearly established.5 The Supreme Court has cautioned courts “not to define clearly established

Manuel v. Gill

270 Mich. App. 355 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 24, 2006

The trial court further determined that because none of the alleged conduct by the individuals amounted to a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … established,” for purposes of qualified immunity, the federal court stated, “Taylor is not and never was entitled to qualified immunity against this claim.” 46 Whether a confidential informant may bring an action under §

Gooden v. Crain

405 F. Supp. 2d 714 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Dec 13, 2005

The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights which a reasonable person … of qualified immunity is available when the plaintiff is seeking damages.

Jensen v. Brown

131 F.4th 677 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 10, 2025

The Administrators were not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established at the time that a professor has a right to * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. … Because “it is not possible to determine at this stage as a matter of law that [Jensen] has not alleged a violation of clearly established law,” the Administrators are not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jul 13, 2006

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an individual is immune from suit if he undertook the actions complained of in good faith in the performance of his duties and the acts do not violate any clearly established constitutional … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not apply where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Id. ; Robinson v.

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

Jonathan Turmon v. Charles Jordan, Individually, and Red Roof Inns, Incorporated

405 F.3d 202 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 25, 2005

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers performing discretionary duties “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Because Jordan violated Turmoris Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures and because that right was clearly established on March 10, 2001, Jordan is not entitled to qualified immunity on the illegal seizure