Case law

Osborne v. Harris County

97 F. Supp. 3d 911 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 31, 2015

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 would have known … A Clearly Established Right The remaining qualified immunity issue is whether the deputies had fair notice that their actions violated a clearly established right.

Menon v. Frinton

170 F. Supp. 2d 190 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 30, 2001

Summary judgment dismissing a claim based upon a defense of qualified immunity may be granted if the court finds that the “asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the evidence is such that, even when it is viewed … The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles public officials to freedom from suits for acts performed in their official capacity if “(1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it

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.

Potts v. Holt

13 F. Supp. 3d 445 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 2014

The following discussion underscores why it would be impermissible for us to conclude that the relevant law was clearly established in anything like a manner that would vitiate a qualified immunity defense. … of the qualified immunity analysis.

Vincent v. Annucci

63 F.4th 145 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 23, 2023

Fischer, 837 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2016), that because Annucci failed to make objectively reasonable efforts to comply with federal law that was clearly established by Earley I, he was not entitled to qualified immunity. … established.”24 In Vincent I, however, we made it clear that “[f]or a right to be ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity, it is sufficient if decisions of the Supreme Court or of the appropriate circuit

Reiver v. District of Columbia

925 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 22, 2013

Since the Court finds that the police conduct was objectively reasonable and did not violate plaintiff’s clearly established rights, the officers are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity, and the motion will … “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

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

TUCKER v. ATWATER

303 Ga. 791 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Jun 4, 2018

The Court of Appeals held that the school officials were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established law. … established law entitles the school officials to qualified immunity.

Richard v. Hall

874 So. 2d 131 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Apr 23, 2004

Revised Statute 9:2795B(1) clearly supports an interpretation that an owner, lessee or occupant qualifies for the immunity where his use of the premises is not principally for a commercial, recreational enterprise for profit … that determines the availability of the immunity provisions to a qualified owner.

Whittington v. Maxwell

455 F. App'x 450 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 22, 2011

Did Maxwell act unreasonably in the light of clearly established law? … We now turn to the second inquiry in the qualified immunity analysis— whether Maxwell acted in an objectively unreasonable manner in the light of clearly established law.

Ginter v. Stallcup

641 F. Supp. 939 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 11, 1986

Knox’s claims of qualified immunity. Ms. Ginter has not brought the Court’s attention to any clearly established law which movants’ conduct on June 3, 1983, violated. The claims against Mr. Blasingame and Mr. … Where the plaintiff can point to no clearly established law that the federal agents violated, they will be entitled to qualified immunity, as discussed above, regardless of their subjective state of mind.

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. .

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.

Michael Mockeridge v. Harry Harvey

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 11, 2025

We can thus “hear interlocutory appeals considering the legal question of qualified immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law.” Moldowan v. … was clearly established at the time.”

Porter v. City of Manchester

151 N.H. 30 · Supreme Court of New Hampshire · May 14, 2004

Qualified Immunity Lafond next argues that the trial court erred by rejecting her qualified immunity defense. … Clearly Established Right We now turn to the second part of the qualified immunity test, whether Porter’s First Amendment rights were clearly established at the time Lafond constructively terminated him.

Ted P. Campbell v. Ernest Mercer, as Mayor of Elmore City, and as an Individual

926 F.2d 990 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 26, 1991

The central issue in connection with defendant Mercer’s claim of qualified immunity is whether it was clearly established law in 1987 that plaintiff Campbell had a constitutional right to a post-termination hearing. … Also, the law was not clearly established that plaintiff had a constitutional right to a post-termination hearing.

Reginald R. Early v. Keith Crockett, Clayborn Carroll, Roberta Lewis, and Lamon Mayo

2019 Ark. 274 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 10, 2019

Appellees, as state employees, are protected by qualified immunity. See Ark. Code Ann. § 19-10-305 (Supp. 2017). State employees’ qualified immunity extends to section 1983 claims. See Robinson v. … Under the standard of qualified immunity, a government official will be entitled to immunity so long as his actions do not violate a clearly established statutory constitutional right of which a reasonable person would

Pindell v. Wilson-McKee

60 F. Supp. 2d 1244 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Aug 17, 1999

IV The standard for consideration of a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity is as follows: Qualified immunity protects public officials from individual liability in a § 1983 action unless the officials violated “clearly … Once a defendant to a § 1983 action raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show both facts and law to establish that the defendant is not entitled to a qualified immunity. Dixon v.

David Thurston v. Kevin Frye

99 F.4th 665 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 29, 2024

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from claims of statutory or constitutional violations when they reasonably mistook the legality of their actions. … immunity—typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established.”

Douglas M. Jones v. Richard A. Heyman

888 F.2d 1328 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 22, 1989

The mayor also asserted that his decision to remove Jones was protected by the qualified immunity doctrine because the mayor did not violate Jones’ clearly established First Amendment rights. … Second, he contends he is entitled to qualified immunity for his discretionary decision to remove Jones from the meeting.