Case law

Tamela Muir v. Decatur County, Iowa

917 F.3d 1050 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 8, 2019

established federal rights.’” … right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Harris v. G.K.

187 So. 3d 871 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 24, 2016

Analysis Qualified immunity shields a government actor from personal liability when his conduct does not violate clearly established rights. See Anderson v. … The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to prove that the defendant’s conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S. Ct. 2727. Becker v.

Michael C. v. Gresbach

526 F.3d 1008 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 19, 2008

The defendants responded that their conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights, and that therefore they were protected by qualified immunity. Both parties moved for summary judgment. … If the right was “clearly established,” the official is not entitled to qualified immunity from suit. A.

Mulero-Carrillo v. Roman-Hernandez

790 F.3d 99 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 17, 2015

right was "clearly established" at the time of the alleged violation. … AFFIRMED. 5 The district court also decided the qualified immunity issue by finding that there was no plausible deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right. -18-

Lelieve v. Oroso

846 F. Supp. 2d 1294 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 14, 2012

Therefore, the burden shifts to Lelieve to demonstrate that Belfort violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right to overcome the qualified-immunity defense. B. Alleged Constitutional Violations 1. … In sum, Lelieve has not met his burden to demonstrate that Belfort violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right to overcome the qualified-immunity defense.

Jamison v. Fischer

617 F. App'x 25 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 30, 2015

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right (2) that was clearly established at … The relevant question for qualified immunity purposes is whether the federal “constitutional right [an official] was alleged to have violated was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Davis v.

Rico L. Mitchell v. Lt. Smith

10 F.4th 1226 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 26, 2021

We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss, accepting the factual allegations in the complaint as true 1 The district court also denied qualified immunity to a fourth … So to defeat a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must establish two things: (1) that officials violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that their conduct was clearly established as unlawful at

Lawny Lamar Browning v. Richard A. Vernon, Director Ron McKinsey

44 F.3d 818 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 10, 1995

Vernon and McKinsey contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity from damages because the allegations in the complaint do not constitute violations of a clearly established liberty interest protected by the Due Process … clearly established?

Wayne Wright v. Charles Beck

981 F.3d 719 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 1, 2020

City of Anaheim, 343 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2003) (“In the absence of binding precedent, a court should look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity … We thus conclude that the due process right to notice, as alleged by Wright, was clearly established and, as a result, Edwards is not entitled to qualified immunity.  WRIGHT V.

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.

Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission v. Jeffrey

178 So. 3d 460 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 20, 2015

Accordingly, because the challenged order in this case denied Officer Johnson’s claim of qualified immunity, he has established the jurisdictional prerequisite of irreparable harm necessary to obtain review of the order … A law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a false arrest claim under § 1983 if the evidence establishes that the officer had probable cause to make the arrest. See Vermette v.

Brown v. City of Oneonta

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

We hold that because it was unclear whether FERPA’s “emergency exception” allowed release of the list, no clearly established right of plaintiffs was infringed and appellants are entitled to qualified immunity from claims … 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.

Putnam v. Davies

169 F.R.D. 89 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 26, 1996

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Both Plaintiff and Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the issue of the availability of qualified immunity to shield Defendants from liability for damages. … 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 rights of which a reasonable person

Rovira Rivera v. Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority

364 F. Supp. 2d 154 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Apr 5, 2005

Qualified Immunity Defendants’ last argument is that their conduct is protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity because it was reasonable and did not violate clearly established law. … The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit and liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable

Brittany Ruffin v. Kevin Davis

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 29, 2026

qualified immunity.” … The “right need not be recognized by a court in a specific factual context before such right may be considered ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity.” Wilson v.

Casteel v. Pieschek

3 F.3d 1050 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 23, 1993

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against suits from damages unless their' conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … To determine the applicability of qualified immunity, the defendants’ actions must be compared to what a reasonable official would believe was required in light of the clearly established legal rules regarding county jail

Culberson v. Clay County

98 F.4th 281 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 8, 2024

“The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at 656 (quoting Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002)). … Furthermore, even if Culberson had used Brown to argue there was a violation of clearly established law, that case did not address whether jail staff were entitled to qualified immunity because only the supervising sheriff

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.

Austrian v. Burlington

Vermont Superior Court · Aug 13, 2024

“The outcome of the inquiry depends on the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Id. … Donovan, 2012 VT 27, 1 6 n.2, 191 Vt. 412 ("The fate of an official with qualified immunity depends upon the circumstances and motivations of his actions, as established by the evidence at trial.' .

Munjoy Sporting & Athletic Club v. Dow

2000 Me. 141 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 21, 2000

“A public official claiming qualified immunity ... must establish either that he or she did not -violate the plaintiffs rights or that given the state of the law a reasonable official would not have understood that he [or … A right is clearly established if “the contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that- right.