Case law

BARLOW EX REL. MONCEBAIZ v. Owens

400 F. Supp. 2d 980 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jul 22, 2005

Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff has not shown a violation of a constitutional right and because Defendants’ actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly-established … Conclusions Because Defendants’ actions in investigating the neighbor’s report, detaining Moncebaiz, and then arresting him were not unreasonable in light of clearly established law, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity

Liebe v. Norton

157 F.3d 574 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 1, 1998

"Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known." Yowell v. … To withstand the application of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must assert a violation of a constitutional or statutory right; that right must have been clearly established at the time of the violation; and, given the facts

Alexander v. University of North Florida

39 F.3d 290 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 2, 1994

PER CURIAM: Principles of qualified immunity control this case. … But, nothing in Cornelius comes close to the “clearly established” standard required to overcome the qualified immunity defense in this case.

Haidon v. Bloomfield

District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 29, 2024

“Qualified immunity protects officials from damages liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or if it was objectively … “Qualified immunity protects officials from damages liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” or, when a clearly established

Hill ex rel. Estate of Hill v. Adkins

59 F. Supp. 3d 814 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Nov 18, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Hill and, if a violation occurred, whether he transgressed a “clearly established right.” See Heflin v. Stewart County, Tenn., 958 F.2d 709, 717 (6th Cir.1992).

Garcia v. Orta

47 F.4th 343 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 2022

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects public officials acting in their individual capacity from lawsuits and liability for damages under Section 1983 unless their conduct violates a clearly established … To overcome an asserted qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must show “sufficient facts to ‘make out a violation of a constitutional right’” and “‘the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of

Montel v. City of Springfield

386 F. Supp. 3d 67 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 24, 2019

As this Court has but recently explained: *75 "Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … "The 'clearly established' analysis has two sub-parts." Id.

Akron v. Pari

2019 Ohio 1083 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2019

Pasco’s motion to dismiss because the unambiguous language of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2) limits immunity to minor drug possession offenses. … This Court concluded that the terms of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2) are unambiguous: The plain language of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b) clearly provides qualified individuals with immunity for a minor drug possession offense

Ramon Cortesluna v. Manuel Leon

979 F.3d 645 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 27, 2020

Principles of Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects individual officers “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Officers are entitled to qualified immunity in § 1983 actions unless they violate “clearly established” rights. Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664 (2012).

William J. Klein v. Lawrence Ryan and Frank Lombardo

847 F.2d 368 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 16, 1988

To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the officials violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Because qualified immunity analysis requires us to apply the law that was clearly established on May 12, 1983, see Zook v. Brown, 748 F.2d 1161, 1164 (7th Cir.1984), Gamer does not control this case. See Brown v.

Troy Thompson v. Ira Mercer

762 F.3d 433 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 7, 2014

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violates constitutional law that was “clearly established at the time of the defendant’s actions.” Freeman v. … We agree with the Thompsons that—at the very least—the relevant law is not so well developed as to clearly establish a violation here. And it is for that very reason that Mercer is entitled to qualified immunity.

Est of La'Mello Parker v. MS Dept

140 F.4th 226 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 6, 2025

Coon therefore cannot provide the clearly established law necessary to overcome qualified immunity. 58 Plaintiffs also cite Grandstaff, but it, too, is distinguishable. … established at the time of the incident—and qualified immunity applies.

Sanders v. City of Dothan

671 F. Supp. 2d 1263 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Nov 30, 2009

Under the “clearly established” prong of the qualified-immunity analysis, police officers are entitled to immunity from suit “unless the law pre-existing the [officerj’s supposedly wrongful act was already established to … immunity because that right was not clearly established.

Robert Wilson v. David Spain, Mike Jones

209 F.3d 713 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 5, 2000

from excessive force while detained by law enforcement officials and that the right has been clearly established. … Since the right to be free from excessive force in the context of an arrest has been clearly established for some time, other circuits have simply held that, in excessive-force eases, the qualified-immunity inquiry and the

Meyer v. NILES TP., ILL.

477 F. Supp. 357 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 24, 1979

Dunne Is Not Protected by the Doctrine of Qualified Immunity. … To rebut the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the constitutional right infringed was clearly established at the time of the action and the official “knew or reasonably should have known that

Policky v. City of Seward, Neb.

433 F. Supp. 2d 1013 · District Court, D. Nebraska · May 25, 2006

Officer Shook Qualified immunity protects government officials from the costs of trial and the burdens of broad discovery unless their discretionary acts violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. … “[T]o withstand a motion for summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds, a plaintiff must (1) assert a violation of a constitutional right; (2) demonstrate that the alleged right is clearly established; and (3) raise

Robinson v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

334 Ga. App. 746 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Nov 23, 2015

Qualified immunity gives government officials performing discretionary functions complete protection from individual claims brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, if their conduct does not violate clearly established … Whether qualified immunity protects an official from suit is a question of law.

Palmieri v. Kammerer

690 F. Supp. 2d 34 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 27, 2010

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person … Thus, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is denied on this basis. ii Protective Sweep/Grab Area There is no doubt that the law regarding protective sweeps was “clearly established” under Maryland v.

Linlor v. Polson

263 F. Supp. 3d 613 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 11, 2017

In evaluating whether Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must determine “(1) whether the plaintiff has established the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established … of qualified immunity.”

Williams v. ONTARIO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT.

662 F. Supp. 2d 321 · District Court, W.D. New York · Sep 21, 2009

Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officials who perform discretionary functions from liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable prison … to qualified immunity.