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.

Jones v. Cannon

174 F.3d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 11, 1999

As discussed, a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity when performing discretionary functions unless the officer has violated a clearly established right of which a reasonable police officer would have known. … This Circuit has held that dicta cannot clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes. Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir.1996); see also Adams v. St.

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

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.

Dahly v. DCFS

876 So. 2d 1245 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 2, 2004

Qualified immunity from a federal civil rights claim means that government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from personal liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Geoghegan, 702 So.2d 517, 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (describing the two-step analysis of a qualified immunity defense).

Barrett v. Board of Education

13 F. Supp. 3d 502 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 9, 2014

Qualified immunity. … The last two prongs of the qualified immunity test turn on “the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.” Cole v.

Cynthia Clayborn v. Dennis Struebling

734 F.3d 807 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 16, 2013

“Qualified immunity protects governmental officials from liability for civil damages if they have not violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Examining qualified immunity, this court applies a two-part test.

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.

Brown v. City Of Oneonta

106 F.3d 1125 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 14, 1997

In addition, appellants claim qualified immunity on the ground that even if release of the list under these circumstances did violate appellees' FERPA rights, those rights were not clearly established at the time of the incident … The function of qualified immunity is to shield from suit those public officials who must make such decisions where, as here, the law is not clear, and no "clearly established right" is infringed. 67 In addition, Hartmark

Perry v. Lilly

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Nov 6, 2023

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct in question.

Duckworth v. St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department

491 F.3d 401 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 19, 2007

immunity ... typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established”). … The next step in the qualified immunity analysis “is to ask whether the right was clearly established ... in light of the specific context of the case.” See Saucier 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

Estate of Sinthasomphone v. City of Milwaukee

838 F. Supp. 1320 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Nov 23, 1993

The majority opinion indicated, however, that they were deciding the qualified immunity issue: whether an obligation was “clearly established,” not whether a constitutional obligation existed. … The three police officers in this case are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violated Konerak Sinthasomphone’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Isbell v. Bellino

983 F. Supp. 2d 492 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2012

Due Process Claims and Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity inquiry requires further discussion. … Thus, absolute immunity is not applicable. C. Qualified Immunity. 1. Qualified Immunity Standard.

Thomas Burnside v. Nueces County, Texas

773 F.3d 624 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 9, 2014

clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … And, the law is clearly established that such a retaliatory action, if proved, violates the First Amendment.

Rice v. Burks

796 F. Supp. 319 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 28, 1992

The Seventh Circuit, in discussing that court’s jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal purportedly on qualified immunity grounds, explained qualified immunity as follows: The defense of qualified immunity articulated in … An official who does not violate law “clearly established” at the time, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 , is entitled not only to prevail, but to prevail before trial. Qualified immunity, we know from Mitchell [v.

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.