Case law

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.

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

Wall-DeSousa v. Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles

691 F. App'x 584 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 2, 2017

(“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant plead *590 ing qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”). III. … This is because, to survive dismissal in this case, the Wall-DeSousas must additionally allege sufficient facts to overcome the second prong of qualified immunity, i.e., clearly established federal law.

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.

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.

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

Green v. Brantley

719 F. Supp. 1570 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jan 20, 1989

to qualified immunity. … According to Anderson , qualified immunity requires not only a finding that general legal principles were clearly established, but also a finding that the law was clearly established with such particularity that a reasonable

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.

Montana v. Patterson

894 S.W.2d 812 · Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District (Tyler) · Dec 28, 1994

Appellees claimed qualified or “good faith” immunity to actions brought under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 , and cited Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … Once the Appellees have asserted the qualified immunity and established that the alleged wrongful acts were taken within the scope of their discretionary authority, the burden then shifts to the Appellant to show that qualified

Troy Lee Douthit v. Clarence Jones, Sheriff, Dallas County, Texas, and W. H. McCallum

619 F.2d 527 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 20, 1980

The Qualified Immunity Defense. … Thus the immunity defense is not available to officials if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have known of that right

J.C. Bass v. United States Department of Agriculture

737 F.2d 1408 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 6, 1984

The crux of Bass’s argument to the court during this discussion was that if it were shown that the defendants had violated clearly established law, the defendants would be unable to rely upon qualified immunity as a defense … Since a question of fact existed as to whether the defendants had violated clearly established law, the district court properly gave instructions on qualified immunity based on the contingency that the jury might find that

Perry v. Mendoza

83 F.4th 313 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 29, 2023

To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the officer (1) violated a constitutional right that was (2) clearly established at the time. Laviage v. Fite, 47 F.4th 402, 405–06 (5th Cir. 2022). … Even assuming those decisions stand for that categorical proposition (which we need not decide), they are too far afield from the present case to clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes.

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.’”

Wolfenbarger v. Williams

826 F.2d 930 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 3, 1987

In this appeal, the defendants make three arguments in support of their claim of qualified immunity. First, they urge that Wolfenbarger’s property interest was not clearly established. … They maintain that while it is now clearly established that Wolfenbarger has a property interest in the stereo items, it was not clearly established at the time.

Slay v. Marion County Sheriff's Department

603 N.E.2d 877 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 23, 1992

IV We next address the issue of qualified immunity. … Jones argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. 6 In particular, he con *887 tends that the rights in question were not "clearly established" when the shooting occurred, in May of 1982. While Tennessee v.

Chico Scrap Metal, Inc. v. Raphael

830 F. Supp. 2d 966 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 23, 2011

The 11th Amendment does not bar this claim. c) Qualified Immunity Defendants finally argue that they are immune from suit in this instance because of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials sued in their individual capacity from monetary damages, unless their conduct violates “clearly established” law that would be known to a reasonable public officer

Deon Johnston v. Deputy Sean M. Carlson

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 14, 2025

Qualified immunity protects police officers from liability for civil damages if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Put another way, “the arguable probable cause inquiry in a false arrest case is no different from the clearly established law inquiry in any other qualified immunity case.

Yarris v. County of Delaware

465 F.3d 129 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 2, 2006

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the court concludes that the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, it must deny the defendant the protection afforded by qualified immunity.

Derfus v. City of Chicago

42 F. Supp. 3d 888 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 20, 2014

Qualified immunity requires a court to assess “the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v. … City of Chicago, 242 F.3d 737 , 742 (7th Cir.2001) (“qualified immunity is dissolved * * * when the conduct is so egregious that no reasonable person could have believed that it would not violate clearly established rights

Lockard v. CITY OF LAWRENCEBURG, IND.

815 F. Supp. 2d 1034 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 6, 2011

In the end, the Seventh Circuit did not reach the clearly established prong for purposes of determining qualified immunity. Id. at 377 . Moreover, at the time of Mr. … Nonetheless, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, relying on the “clearly established” qualified immunity prong. Id.