Case law

Ralph and Sharon Hughes v. City of North Olmsted

93 F.3d 238 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 20, 1996

The individual defendants respond that they are all entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … In the present case, the defendants should have been granted qualified immunity because there is no evidence that the investigation violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Brooks v. Berg

270 F. Supp. 2d 302 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 15, 2003

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages if their actions were objectively reasonable, as evaluated in the context of legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at … Accordingly, the Court turns to the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry: whether this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Harris v. Hammon

914 F. Supp. 2d 1026 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Dec 19, 2012

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Martinez v. Mathis

970 F. Supp. 1047 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Mar 31, 1997

“If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” … “For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government

Melvin Alexander, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated v. Lamar Alexander, Governor

706 F.2d 751 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 3, 1983

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at-, 102 S.Ct. at 2737, and proving either that the law was not clearly established at the time of plaintiff’s alleged injury, or, if the law was clearly established, that he neither knew nor should have

Villarreal v. City of Laredo

17 F.4th 532 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 1, 2021

The district court dismissed her First Amendment infringement claim against various officials on qualified immunity grounds, finding that any violation was not clearly established at the time. … of clearly established law.

Lyons v. City of Xenia

90 F. App'x 835 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 27, 2004

Because we conclude as a matter of law that Officer Keith did not violate any clearly-established constitutional rights, we reverse the district court’s judgment denying her qualified immunity. … defendant did acts that violated clearly established rights.”

Snow v. City of El Paso, Texas

501 F. Supp. 2d 826 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Apr 4, 2006

Qualified immunity shields public officials from both civil damages and trial “if their actions were objectively reasonable in light of then clearly established law.” Bazan v. … The Court employs a two step process to resolve a qualified immunity defense. First, the Court must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged “the violation of a clearly established Constitutional *835 right.”

Albert Darruthy v. City of Miami

351 F.3d 1080 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 26, 2003

Ferraro: Qualified immunity offers “complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as ‘their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … [are] specific enough to establish clearly the law applicable to particular conduct and circumstances and to overcome qualified immunity, even in the total absence of case law.

Hoard v. Sizemore

198 F.3d 205 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 17, 1999

immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law.” … violated clearly established law.

A.S. ex rel. J.S. v. Reaves

1 So. 3d 980 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 27, 2008

Foltz, 370 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir.2004), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that, to overcome qualified immunity, not only must the government official violate a clearly established statutory or … Fitzgerald and concluded that the constitutional right violated in that case was a clearly established one.

Buck v. City of Albuquerque

549 F.3d 1269 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 9, 2008

entitlement to qualified immunity. … Third, he urges that, even if the officers did not have probable cause to arrest, he is protected by qualified immunity’s second prong, because the right of the Arrested Plaintiffs was not clearly established.

Dunn v. City of Boynton Beach

192 F. Supp. 3d 1310 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 14, 2016

A public official performing a discretionary function enjoys qualified immunity in a civil action for damages if his or her conduct “does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which … Qualified immunity may be raised in a motion to dismiss. Skrtich v.

PANAGACOS v. Towery

782 F. Supp. 2d 1183 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 1, 2011

Qualified Immunity. … The second step of the qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to determine whether the constitutional rights at issue were clearly established when viewed in the specific context of the case.

Robinson v. Bell

767 P.2d 177 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1989

Immunity from suit is obviously an intended incentive for employers to qualify under the Act. … The relationship between Genuine Parts Company and NAPA is not clearly established in the record. .

Navajo Housing Authority v. Johns

11 Am. Tribal Law 31 · Navajo Nation Supreme Court · Sep 10, 2012

, as Dana clearly intended. … However, the provision was, without doubt, part of the larger statutory scheme that established NHA as a public body.

Loynachan v. Smiley

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 7, 2024

Qualified immunity is a 25 question of law to be decided by the court. … Clearly Established Right 5 Still, qualified immunity applies if the violated 6 constitutional right was not clearly established.

Coffin v. Brandau

609 F.3d 1204 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 22, 2010

To strip the Deputies of qualified immunity, the Coffins must have had a clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from a warrantless entry of their garage or warrantless arrest therein. … Therefore, we conclude that the Deputies’ “conduct was not so clearly established as to justify stripping [them] of *1214 qualified immunity.” McClish, 483 F.3d at 1249 . IV.

Kenjoh Outdoor, LLC v. Jack Marchbanks

23 F.4th 686 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 11, 2022

So the district court properly granted Nathan Fling qualified immunity. Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) they violate a constitutional right that (2) was “clearly established.” … We will “affirm[] the application of qualified immunity” because it is “apparent from the complaint that the law was not clearly established because ‘not a single judicial opinion’ ha[s] held the official’s action unconstitutional

Schmelz v. Monroe County

954 F.2d 1540 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 19, 1992

Good faith qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects government employees from suit for actions that “ ‘legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated’ ” and the public interest would … Once qualified immunity is asserted by the defendants, the plaintiff must show that the law was clearly established that the defendants’ acts rose to the level of “deliberate indifference.” Edwards, 867 F.2d at 1275 .