Case law

Anthony Wayne Hardigree v. Marc Lofton

992 F.3d 1216 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 6, 2021

Immunity is appropriate so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Once an official asserting qualified immunity establishes that he was acting within his discretionary authority—which is not in question here—the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is improper

Boisseau v. Town of Walls

138 F. Supp. 3d 792 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Oct 8, 2015

The Fifth Circuit has described the basic qualified immunity standard as follows: “This court applies a two-step analysis to determine whether a defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity … Amendment and accordingly upheld the defendant’s qualified immunity defense.

Michael Gatto, as the Personal Representative of Michael Joseph Gatto v. City of Statesboro

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Oct 21, 2019

The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims, asserting, inter alia, that the City is entitled to sovereign immunity, that Starling is entitled to qualified or official immunity, and that no act or omission of … The trial court ruled that Starling was entitled to sovereign immunity; the trial court never addressed whether she was entitled to qualified immunity as asserted by the defendants.

Fennell v. Gilstrap

559 F.3d 1212 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 27, 2009

The court then examined whether Gilstrap’s actions violated clearly established law. (Id. at 33.) … in violation of clearly established law.

Keyonte Ashford, Sr. v. Michael Raby

951 F.3d 798 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 5, 2020

But the district court entered summary judgment for Raby based on qualified immunity. The court found that Raby’s use of force was legal and (even if it wasn’t) did not violate clearly established law. … In the end, nothing about Raby’s use of Ruger to seize Ashford violated clearly established law. Thus, Raby is entitled to qualified immunity. We affirm.

Brown v. Office of State Comptroller

211 F. Supp. 3d 455 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 29, 2016

Third, defendants contend that, even if Brown’s speech was protected by the First Amendment, the law at issue is not clearly established and thus they are protected under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Courts typically frame the qualified immunity analysis by requiring the defendant to establish one of two conditions: that “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable

Torcasio v. Murray

862 F. Supp. 1482 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Sep 14, 1994

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity insulates government officials from civil damages liability when the officials’ actions do not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Evaluating a defense of qualified immunity involves three discrete determinations: (1) identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determination of whether the right was so clearly established as to put a

Sanguinetti

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 20, 2026

right was clearly established at the time of the misconduct. … This claim is barred by qualified immunity.

Boyd v. Robeson County

169 N.C. App. 460 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 5, 2005

Qualified Immunity The detention officers next argue that summary judgment should have been granted on the § 1983 claims based on qualified immunity. 4 *479 The United States Supreme Court has held that “[t]he threshold inquiry … a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.”

Hensley v. Suttles

167 F. Supp. 3d 753 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 9, 2016

In response, these Defendants claim they are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … In their summary judgment opening brief, the Defendants make no arguments beyond public official immunity/qualified immunity.

Bass v. Richards

308 F.3d 1081 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 14, 2002

It is subject to appeal, however, when the defendants are public officials asserting a qualified immunity defense and the appealed issue is whether a given set of facts establishes that defendants violated clearly established … Instead, Appellants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Bass' right to affiliate himself with Vorhies, an unannounced candidate, was not clearly established at the time his commission was removed. 21

Anthony Norman v. Ashlei Janak, Bobby Lumpkin, Bryan Collier, Shovanda D. Mathis, Margarita Thomas, Rocky Moore, and Tammy Shelby

Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District · May 1, 2025

See 2 Although it is more precise to say Defendants would be entitled to “qualified immunity” under federal law from Norman’s Section 1983 claims, “official immunity” and “qualified immunity” are often used … Further, qualified immunity under federal law is analogous to state law official immunity and “protects governmental officers with discretionary authority from liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Lamont Shepard v. T. Quillen

840 F.3d 686 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 26, 2016

Whether Shepard’s right was clearly established Wise may nevertheless be entitled to qualified immunity if the right at issue was not “clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … We thus do not fault Shepard for failing to address the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis in his opening brief.

Derrick Dorrell Turner v. Arkansas Insurance Department, Mike Pickens

297 F.3d 751 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 11, 2002

The issue presented on appeal is a narrow one: Whether, for qualified immunity purposes, it was “clearly established” on September 23, 1999, that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 conferred upon an at-will employee the right to be free from … To do so, in essence, would give these cases the force and effect of law on certain propositions in the narrow context of determining whether the law was "clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes.

Blue v. Koren

72 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 26, 1995

Circuit in Martin, 812 F.2d at 1432 , “[t]he ‘clearly established law' and ‘objective reasonableness’ facets of current qualified immunity doctrine tug in opposite directions where, as here, the ‘clearly established law' … When such a motion is based on assertion of qualified immunity, the first issue is whether a clearly established right is at stake. See Siegert, 500 U.S. at 232 , 111 S.Ct. at 1793 .

Vance v. Wade

546 F.3d 774 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 17, 2008

“According to the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … defendant did acts that violated clearly established rights.”

Drogosch v. Metcalf

557 F.3d 372 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 25, 2009

Clearly established right For a right to be clearly established, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” … Drogosch has accordingly satisfied the “clearly established” prong of the qualified-immunity analysis. D.

Hambric v. Twilley

District Court, N.D. Alabama · Jan 25, 2024

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Because Plaintiff’s allegations fail to show that Sheriff Smith violated clearly established law, he is entitled to qualified immunity. Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 525. IV.

Chipman v. City of Florence

866 F. Supp. 332 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Oct 12, 1994

After reviewing the parties’ briefs and conducting oral argument, this court concluded that the defendant law enforcement officers had not violated clearly established law and were, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity … As the constitutional rights which the defendant law enforcement officers allegedly violated in this ease are not clearly established, those defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Beg Investments, LLC v. Alberti

34 F. Supp. 3d 68 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials, who are sued in their individual capacity for money damages, for “conduct [that] does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … That is certainly the case here. 16  The Court thus turns to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis — whether it was clearly established, in June