Case law

Staco v. Miami-Dade County

536 F. Supp. 2d 1301 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 26, 2008

This heightened pleading standard is important because the court in a qualified immunity case must determine whether the individual defendant’s actions violated a “clearly established” constitutional right. Id. … The affirmative defense of qualified 'immunity protects public actors from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Jacqueline Tuggle v. Tom Mangan, Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission

348 F.3d 714 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 6, 2003

In denying Man-gan’s qualified immunity defense, the district court stated the law was clearly established at the time Mangan acted that intentional sexual harassment by a person acting under color of state law violated the … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity generally shields state actors from civil liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Roybal-Mack v. N.M. Dep't of Pub. Safety

286 F. Supp. 3d 1226 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 12, 2017

If the plaintiff fails to establish either part of the two-part inquiry, the court must grant the defendants qualified immunity. Id. … Whether Law Was Clearly Established The Court need not address whether the law clearly established as the second part of the qualified immunity analysis, having found that Defendants did not violate Plaintiff's constitutional

Stevenson v. Owens State Community College

562 F. Supp. 2d 965 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 25, 2008

The key inquiry in analyzing a claim of qualified immunity is whether the defendant’s alleged conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … As such, this Court finds that the Individual Defendants are protected by qualified immunity. IV.

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.

Randall McElhaney v. Dustin Williams

81 F.4th 550 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 25, 2023

Because today’s appeal arises from the successful assertion of qualified immunity, we must modify our inquiry. Qualified immunity shields officials from trial “unless their actions violate clearly established rights.” … Accordingly, McElhaney has satisfied the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity inquiry.

Schaffrath on Behalf of RJJ v. Thomas

993 F. Supp. 842 · District Court, D. Utah · Jan 28, 1998

clearly established at the time of the conduct *847 at issue. … “Ordinarily, in order for the law to be clearly established, there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found' the law to be

Briaheen Thomas v. Tice

948 F.3d 133 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 15, 2020

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … As the Majority notes, qualified immunity does not shield a government official where she has “violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Reichle v.

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.

Beauregard v. Olson

84 F.3d 1402 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 12, 1996

Pelletier, --- U.S. ----, ---- 116 S.Ct. 834, 842, 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996), to decide the core qualified immunity question of whether it was clearly established before Olson acted that he could not lawfully fire these … This case is not the exceptional case where the individual defendant is unentitled to qualified immunity: it was not clearly established at the time Olson acted that firing Plaintiffs was unlawful.

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.

Ralph and Sharon Hughes v. City of North Olmsted

93 F.3d 238 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 20, 1996

The individual defendants respond that they are all entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … In the present case, the defendants should have been granted qualified immunity because there is no evidence that the investigation violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Paul Frederick Lenea, Cross-Appellant v. Michael P. Lane, Cross-Appellees

882 F.2d 1171 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 11, 1989

clearly established in 1983. … that right was “clearly established” by 1983.

Ralph Walsh, Jr. v. Lisa Hodge

975 F.3d 475 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 15, 2020

Because Walsh’s deprivations of due process were not clearly established constitutional rights, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and RENDER judgment in favor of Defendants. … immunity analysis: was Walsh’s constitutional right clearly established?

Julian Betton v. David Belue

942 F.3d 184 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 5, 2019

Officer Belue appeals only the court’s denial of qualified immunity with respect to the excessive force claim. … The burden of establishing the affirmative defense of qualified immunity rests on the party seeking to invoke it. Id.

Blankenship v. Manchin

410 F. Supp. 2d 483 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jan 18, 2006

Clearly Established Law The question under this second and final step in the qualified immunity analysis is “whether a reasonable [official] could have believed [the challenged conduct] to be lawful, in light of clearly established … It is important to note that the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes not only when “the very action in question has previously been held unlawful,” but .also when “pre-existing law” makes the “unlawfulness

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.”

Washington Square Post 1212 American Legion v. Maduro

907 F.2d 1288 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 28, 1990

a warrantless entry, or closed to non-Post members, in which case it was clearly established that a warrant was necessary. … DISCUSSION Qualified immunity has long shielded government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or con *1291 stitutional

George Zilich v. Thomas Longo David Mack Nancy Marincic Rose Marie Lovano Joseph Suster Michael Abella and Wilhelm Spiegelberg

34 F.3d 359 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 3, 1994

We conclude that the resolution and ordinance are not a bill of attainder and that their passage did not violate plaintiffs clearly established First Amendment rights; therefore, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity … We also agree with the findings of the district court that Zifich's First Amendment right of free speech was "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes.

Stinebaugh v. City of Wapakoneta

630 F. App'x 522 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 10, 2015

Thus, Stinebaugh established the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis — that his First Amendment rights were violated. See City of Elyria, 502 F.3d at 491 . B. Clearly Established Law. … “To determine whether a right was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, this court look[s] first to decisions of the Supreme Court, then to decisions of this court and other courts within our circuit, and