Case law

Gale v. Thomas

759 So. 2d 1150 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1999

Clearly, the City's immunity stems from the re-enactment of immunity by § 11-46-3. … Gale's argument regarding qualified immunity is misplaced. Gale seems to claim that the only manner in which Officer Thomas may receive immunity is through the application of qualified immunity.

Johnson v. Myers

129 F.4th 1189 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 3, 2025

It was clearly established law that a fatal shooting under these circumstances violated the Fourth Amendment. … Clearly Established Right Appellants insist that, even if Officers Myers and Beecroft violated Smith’s constitutional right to be free from the use of excessive force, that right was not clearly established in the circumstances

James Terry, Jr. v. City of New Orleans

609 F.3d 757 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 21, 2010

Jurisdiction and Standard of Review “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Based on these principles, the Warden’s conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Downey v. Coalition Against Rape and Abuse, Inc.

143 F. Supp. 2d 423 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 2, 2001

When material facts are not in dispute, the district court may decide whether a government official has established the defense of qualified immunity as a matter of law. Anderson v. … not rest on clearly established law, defendants Batten and Moore accordingly are entitled to immunity from plaintiffs Equal Protection claim.

Ferguson v. Hall

33 F. Supp. 2d 608 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jan 28, 1999

A government official is not entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct results in the violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. … To withstand a motion for summary judgment based on a claim of qualified immunity in the Sixth Circuit, a plaintiff must establish two things.

Cox v. Wilson

959 F.3d 1249 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 22, 2020

Yet the Pauly officers were protected by qualified immunity because of the absence of clearly established law prohibiting their conduct. … Moreover, were we to consider this argument, it would fail because the clearly-established-law component of qualified immunity is not a jury issue. See Griess v.

Robison v. Department of Insurance, Finanical Institutions and Professional Registration

District Court, E.D. Missouri · Feb 23, 2022

immunity. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (explaining qualified immunity protects a government official from liability unless his conduct violated a “clearly established” constitutional or statutory right).

Haggerty v. Texas Southern University

391 F.3d 653 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 18, 2004

Jurisdiction over this Appeal “Denial of summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity is immediately appealable to the extent that the question on appeal is whether the undisputed facts amount to a violation of clearly … established law.”

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.

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.

Kinlocke v. Benton

257 F. Supp. 3d 1368 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 19, 2017

Next, a plaintiff seeking to overcome a defendant’s qualified' immunity privilege must show that (1) the state actor violated plaintiffs constitutional or statutory rights, and (2) those rights were clearly established at … In sum, when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Kinlocke, there are sufficient allegations to show that Fox violated Kin-locke’s clearly established right to medical care, and hence Fox is not entitled to qualified

Michael Kingsley v. Stan Hendrickson

801 F.3d 828 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 8, 2015

The defendants take a different position; in their view, the decision of the Supreme Court en- titles them to qualified immunity. … In § 1983 actions, “[q]ualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged

King v. Thornburg

762 F. Supp. 336 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Apr 17, 1991

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendant Brown contends that even if he is not entitled to absolute immunity he is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions would have been taken within his “discretionary authority” as chief … In order to overcome a qualified immunity defense, 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 or, ... the

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.

Willson v. Cagle

711 F. Supp. 1521 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 22, 1988

clearly established constitutional rights. … However, the Harlow opinion also clearly states that qualified immunity is available only to "government officials performing discretionary functions." Id.

Ross Anthony Smith and Michael Bodak v. Mark Garretto, Individually

147 F.3d 91 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 3, 1998

Qualified immunity protects a governmental official from suit for any actions that did not violate a clearly established constitutional right and those actions as to which the official had an objectively reasonable good faith … The first inquiry to be made concerning qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff has “allege[d] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Siegert v.

Muhammed Kenyatta v. Roy K. Moore, James O. Ingram and Thomas Fitzpatrick

744 F.2d 1179 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 29, 1984

In Harlow the Supreme Court simplified the qualified immunity defense, jettisoning the previous requirement of good faith, and announced a simple objective standard; whether a defendant violated “clearly established” law … As we have explained above, the Harlow Court eliminated the subjective prong from analysis of qualified immunity; what remains is the question whether the agents’ actions violated rights clearly established at the time.

Glenn-Robinson v. Acker

140 N.C. App. 606 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 5, 2000

“The test of qualified immunity for police officers sued under [section 1983] is whether [the officers’ conduct violated] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … In ruling on the defense of qualified immunity we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation; and (3)

Sean Hart v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich.

138 F.4th 409 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 15, 2025

Because Hart has failed to meet his burden of establishing that Officer Reinink violated his clearly established rights, I would affirm the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to Officer Reinink. … Two long-established qualified immunity principles compel this result. To overcome an officer’s qualified immunity defense, “[t]he plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the right was clearly established.” Bell v.

Chappell v. City of Cleveland

584 F. Supp. 2d 974 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2008

In general, qualified immunity applies when government officials’ conduct in performing discretionary functions “does not violate ‘clearly established’ statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … The Saucier Test For Qualified Immunity In Saucier v.