Case law

Barkes Ex Rel. Barkes v. First Correctional Medical, Inc.

766 F.3d 307 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 5, 2014

See id. at 678 (“In the context of determining whether there is a violation of clearly established law to overcome qualified immunity, purpose rather than knowledge is required to impose Bivens liability on the subordinate … “Qualified 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 conduct.”

Zimmerman v. Spears

428 F. Supp. 759 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Jan 3, 1977

JUDICIAL IMMUNITY The Plaintiffs’ allegations concerning the Judicial Defendants and the record in SA-76-CA-152 clearly show that their actions were well within the scope of their judicial duties. … Even under this qualified good faith immunity, these defendants are immune from suit.

Janet Feliciano v. City of Miami Beach

707 F.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 5, 2013

The district court denied the defendant officers qualified immunity on the claim, reasoning that although their initial entry did not violate Feliciano’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, they plainly exceeded … The district court rejected the officers’ claims for qualified immunity, but solely on the ground that the scope of their search, particularly of the underwear drawer and kitchen pantry, violated Feliciano’s clearly established

Susan King v. Todd Harwood

852 F.3d 568 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 27, 2017

to qualified immunity. . . . … , because Defendants would lose qualified immunity only if they “recklessly or knowingly” violated King’s clearly established right to be free from malicious prosecution.

Roman Catholic Foundation v. Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

590 F. Supp. 2d 1083 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Dec 16, 2008

The reason plaintiffs cannot obtain monetary relief is because defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 3 The reason that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity is because their view that the Establishment Clause … Such liability, in turn, depends on whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 4 .

Youngbear v. Thalacker

174 F. Supp. 2d 902 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Nov 8, 2001

Qualified Immunity 1. … The qualified immunity defense should fail if the official violates a clearly established right, because “a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.”

Lynch v. City of Boston

989 F. Supp. 275 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 9, 1997

A defense of qualified immunity ordinarily fails where the law that was violated was clearly established, “since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” … depends on the concept of a “clearly established” right.

Tessler v. Paterson

768 F. Supp. 2d 661 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 7, 2011

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity where his or her discretionary conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … a clearly established constitutional right.

Trifax Corp. v. District of Columbia

53 F. Supp. 2d 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 14, 1999

The second step of the qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to consider whether the individually named defendants “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … As such, Plaintiff is simply unable to establish that Defendants Gaskins and Thomas violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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