Case law

Petro Rentals, Inc. et al. v. The City of Auburn, New York, et al.

District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 13, 2026

Related to § 1983’s “personal involvement” requirement is the affirma- tive defense of qualified immunity, which shields individual defendants from liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), to defeat qualified immunity a plaintiff show that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right; (2) that was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.

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

Miguel A. Figueroa-Rodriguez v. Jorge L. Aquino, Etc.

863 F.2d 1037 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 9, 1988

See DeAbadia, 792 F.2d at 1193 (“the very fact that there is a reasonable dispute means that, from the standpoint of qualified immunity, the law was not clearly established in plaintiff’s favor”). … Given this focus, Aquino was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in January 1985 that political affiliation was not an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the job of

Roden v. Wright

646 So. 2d 605 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Aug 19, 1994

This burden is met by proof demonstrating that the defendant public official's actions 'violated clearly established constitutional law.' Zeigler [v. Jackson ], 716 F.2d [847] at 849 [11th Cir. 1983]. Accord, I.A. … Thus, in stating that "[i]t does not violate any clearly established constitutional principle for a politician . . . to write a letter to Gold Kist, Inc. encouraging the latter not to enter into an arrangement to place chicken

In Re Barbara H. Allen, Better Government Bureau, Incorporated, an Ohio Corporation v. Darrell v. McGraw Jr., Attorney General, State of West Virginia, Personally and in His Official Capacity Better Government Bureau Office of the Attorney General State of West Virginia, a Body Politic, a Corporate Instrumentality of Government With Limited Agency and Quasisovereign Capacity Ken Hechler, Secretary of State, in His Official Capacity v. Donna Willis, Party in Interest. Better Government Bureau, Incorporated, an Ohio Corporation v. Darrell v. McGraw Jr., Attorney General, State of West Virginia, Personally and in His Official Capacity, and Better Government Bureau Office of the Attorney General State of West Virginia, a Body Politic, a Corporate Instrumentality of Government With Limited Agency and Quasi-Sovereign Capacity Ken Hechler, Secretary of State, in His Official Capacity v. Barbara H. Allen Donna Willis, Parties in Interest. (Two Cases)

119 F.3d 1129 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 8, 1997

immunity even by violating clearly established state law, id. at 194 , 104 S.Ct. at 3019 . … that federal qualified immunity is lost if an official violates clearly established state law.

Cranford v. Kluttz

278 F. Supp. 3d 848 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2017

established” for qualified immunity purposes. … interest may make it more difficult to find the law ‘clearly established’ when assessing claims of qualified immunity.”); Borucki v.

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.

Clayton Franklin v. Franklin County, Arkansas

956 F.3d 1060 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 24, 2020

The Griffiths are entitled to qualified immunity on their federal claim if their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would know. See White v. Pauly, 137 S. … Broadly defined rights by themselves do not create clearly established law outside an "obvious case," see Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S.

Andre Guite v. James Wright Steven James Lashomb

147 F.3d 747 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 26, 1998

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity. … First, they appeal the district court’s denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Conner v. Tate

130 F. Supp. 2d 1370 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Feb 9, 2001

In Lassiter , the Eleventh Circuit held that for a law to be clearly established in the qualified immunity context, “preexisting law must dictate, that is truly compel (not just suggest or allow or raise a question about) … as clearly established law.

Towery v. State

221 Cal. Rptr. 3d 692 · California Court of Appeal, 5th District · Aug 10, 2017

Civil Code section 52.1 does not address the immunity established by Government Code section 844.6. Nothing in Civil Code section 52.1 indicates an intent to abrogate this specific immunity provision. … The court explained that the current scope of this qualified immunity "shields a public officer from an action for damages under 42 United States Code section 1983 unless the officer has violated a 'clearly established' constitutional

May v. Fulton County, Ga.

925 F. Supp. 769 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 7, 1995

Qualified immunity may only preclude individual capacity claims. … For a court to find that a plaintiff was deprived of a clearly established right for the purpose of qualified immunity analysis, ‘“[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand

Currier v. Doran

242 F.3d 905 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 1, 2001

Because Plaintiffs have alleged a clearly established constitutional claim against Defendants Doran and Gonzales, these Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity; this court therefore affirms the district court … Clearly Established Law Once defendants raise the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must demonstrate to the court that the law on which the plaintiff relies was clearly established at the time of the defendants

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.

Terry A. Leonard, P.A. v. Glenn

293 S.W.3d 669 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · May 20, 2009

[T]he offering party [must] establish that the expert has ‘knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education’ [to qualify the expert in that particular case]).” Baptist Hosp. of Se. Tex. v. … Tangible Property Even if appellants established governmental use, they must also establish the use or misuse of “tangible” property.

Ecclesiastical Order of the ISM of AM, Inc. v. Chasin

653 F. Supp. 1200 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 24, 1986

Defend.ants claim that they have satisfied the requisite test for qualified immunity; to wit, the “objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v. … Agents of the IRS do not have absolute immunity — only qualified immunity — from suit. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985).

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.

Miguel Gutierrez v. Michael Kermon

722 F.3d 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 12, 2013

Qualified immunity affords an even greater level of protection by shielding officers from “suit for damages if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the … does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Larry and Karen Spielman v. Sara C. Hildebrand and Don Madsen

873 F.2d 1377 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 3, 1989

. § 1983 and, if so, whether such rights were clearly established at the time of the deprivation, thereby divesting the defendants of qualified immunity from suit for their actions in this matter. We affirm. I. … As with the constitutional claim, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless the Spielmans can show the deprivation of a clearly established right.

Smith v. Robinson

456 F. Supp. 449 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 1978

Under the circumstances, the “clearly established right” aspect of Wood v. Strickland is unavailing to plaintiff here, and defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity must therefore prevail. … With respect to the equal protection claim, however, plaintiff does not even suggest that prior decisions delineate a “clearly established” right that would defeat defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity.