Case law

Anthony Wayne Hardigree v. Marc Lofton

992 F.3d 1216 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 6, 2021

Immunity is appropriate so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Once an official asserting qualified immunity establishes that he was acting within his discretionary authority—which is not in question here—the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is improper

Eric Wenzel v. Carl Storm

899 F.3d 598 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 9, 2018

Qualified immunity shields a law enforcement officer from liability in a § 1983 action unless the officer’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity “unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established

Allah v. Brown

351 F. Supp. 2d 278 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 26, 2004

Qualified Immunity Even if a plaintiff can establish a constitutional violation, under the doctrine of qualified immunity government officials will not be liable if “[tjheir conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … If the law is not established clearly when an official acts, he is entitled to qualified immunity because he “could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments.”

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

Clyde Weiler v. James Purkett Leah Embly

137 F.3d 1047 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 2, 1998

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields government actors from suit when, “a reasonable officer could have believed [the challenged act] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [defendants … Contours of the Right as “Clearly Established” Normally, a determination that the plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of a constitutional right ends the qualified immunity inquiry. See, e.g., Thomas v.

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.

Velasquez v. Audirsch

574 F. App'x 476 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 3, 2014

Qualified immunity protects governmental officials from liability so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … In this context, “qualified immunity turns ... on whether it was then ‘clearly established that the circumstances with which’ the officer ‘was confronted did not constitute probable cause and exigent circumstances.’ ” Pierce

Lightfoot v. Floyd

667 So. 2d 56 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Aug 4, 1995

Henson and Chief Smith and the qualified immunity of Investigator Floyd. … Lightfoot has stated a cause of action for conversion against Investigator Floyd and Floyd did not establish that he was entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law, the summary judgment for Floyd on this claim was

Merchant v. Fairfax County, Va.

778 F. Supp. 2d 636 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 11, 2011

Yet, this does not end the qualified immunity analysis. The second step of the inquiry requires determining whether the constitutional right violated was “clearly established” in the specific context presented here. … Merchant — -was clearly established. Therefore, Officer Bauer is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. 14 *650 B.

Basile v. Elizabethtown Area School District

61 F. Supp. 2d 392 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 1999

The Supreme Court established the standard for qualified immunity in Harlow v. … (a) were clearly established.

Caron v. Hester, et al.

2001 DNH 206 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 13, 2001

Qualified Immunity. … To qualify as a clearly established right, “the law must have defined the right in a quite specific manner, and . . . the announcement of the rule establishing the right must have been unambiguous and widespread, such

Boyer v. Mohring

994 F. Supp. 2d 649 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 2014

‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

Heidemann v. Rother

84 F.3d 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 1, 1996

For reversal, all of the defendants, including Joy, argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law because plaintiffs have failed to allege a violation of any clearly established constitutional or federal … In Behrens, the defendant, an official with the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, had moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, arguing that his actions had not violated any clearly established right.

Fidelity Security Life Insurance v. State

191 Ariz. 222 · Arizona Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1998

That section provides in relevant part: Qualified Immunity A. … were dismissed on the pleadings under the doctrine of absolute immunity, we do not reach the question of qualified immunity.

Ex Parte Kelley

739 So. 2d 1095 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 25, 1999

This Court has addressed the question presented here on other occasions, and it has recently held in Ex parte Davis, supra, that acts by a State employee may be immune from a lawsuit, on the basis of qualified immunity, if … However, acts by a State employee that are merely ministerial in nature are not protected by qualified immunity. See Defoor v.

Adams v. Thompson

560 F. Supp. 894 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Apr 14, 1983

Qualified immunity now depends on the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law, not upon malice or other subjective factors. Harlow v. … Since it is clear that qualified or “good faith” immunity is an affirmative defense, Gomez v.

Brown v. Grabowski

922 F.2d 1097 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 29, 1991

Anderson's strict elaboration of Harlow, establishing that an official is entitled to summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity, unless the right that the official is alleged to have violated is both clearly established … established constitutional duty and that he was entitled to qualified immunity.

Abdul Khan v. Newell Normand, Sheriff, et a

683 F.3d 192 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 1, 2012

Qualified immunity protects government officials from money damages unless a plaintiff shows: (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged … Courts “have discretion to decide which of the two prongs of qualified-immunity analysis to tackle first.” Id.

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