Case law

Shase Howse v. Thomas Hodous

953 F.3d 402 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 18, 2020

Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers from civil liability unless the officers (1) violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time. … As for Middaugh, the majority correctly states that, in order to overcome an assertion of qualified immunity, Howse must show that the officers violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Moreta-Ramirez v. Lemert

233 F. Supp. 2d 286 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Nov 26, 2002

Interpreting Harlow , the First Circuit has established a three-part inquiry to determine whether or not the doctrine of qualified immunity applies in a given situation. … as to strip the defendant of his or her qualified immunity.

Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt

276 F.3d 1125 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 11, 2002

The district court granted summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds in favor of all individual defendants except for Lewis and Philip. … Analysis Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials ... generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Bowser v. Smith

314 F. Supp. 3d 30 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 22, 2018

Bowser's *32 pleadings fail to carry his burden to state a claim of violation of clearly established law, and that his claims must therefore be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. … Smith violated the Constitution, qualified immunity fails only if his conduct violated clearly established law in those particular circumstances. Pearson , 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 .

Bailey v. Iles

78 F.4th 801 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 2023

However, “[a] qualified immunity defense alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof” because the plaintiff, to overcome qualified immunity, “must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine [dispute of material … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity “if there is no violation, or if the conduct did not violate law clearly established at the time.” Id.

Wimbley v. Cashion

588 F.3d 959 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 3, 2009

The court found genuine issues of material fact whether Cashion’s reasons for discharging Wimbley were pretextual, and denied qualified immunity. II. This court reviews de novo a denial of qualified immunity. … Cashion is not entitled to qualified immunity under part one of the Saucier inquiry. B. The second Saucier inquiry is whether the right was clearly established.

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

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.

Harris v. Morales

231 F. App'x 773 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 2, 2007

right and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s unlawful conduct.” … The district court did not fully consider qualified immunity; it did not address whether the applicable constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of Captain Gore’s actions.

Williamson v. Cox

952 F. Supp. 2d 176 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 9, 2013

was clearly established at the time an action occurred. . . .’”). … The qualified immunity analysis “‘turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.’” Youngbey v.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.”

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.

Frances Green v. Monmouth University (080612) (Monmouth County and Statewide)

237 N.J. 516 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 7, 2019

of immunity is decided once it is established that the entity itself is “charitable,” “religious,” or “educational.” … The panel found that the concerts were nevertheless “clearly ‘educational’ and ‘charitable’ within the intent of the Charitable Immunity Act.” Ibid.

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.

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.

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.