Case law

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.

White v. Bibb County, Georgia

28 F. Supp. 2d 1374 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Dec 7, 1998

To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiffs must show (1) that Defendant God-bee violated their constitutional rights and (2) that those rights were clearly established at the time of the violation. … It is well settled in the Eleventh Circuit that “the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Michael A. Bolden, Sr. v. Al Alston, Superintendent, Lincoln Correctional Facility, Nathaniel Hayes, Sergeant and Edward Kirkland, Sergeant

810 F.2d 353 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 28, 1987

Concluding that these rights had been clearly established by June 1982, the District Judge rejected appellants’ defense of official good faith immunity. … They contend that, even if they deprived Bolden of some due process rights, they did not contravene clearly established law and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

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

Willie Bigford, Jr. v. Joe Max Taylor, Individually and as Sheriff of Galveston County, Texas

896 F.2d 972 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 23, 1990

action generally 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.” … For the legal rules to be considered “clearly established,” the “contours” of the right alleged to have been violated “must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates

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.

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

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.

Cathy Burns v. Rick Reed

44 F.3d 524 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 6, 1995

Qualified immunity protects public officials from civil suit based on their discretionary functions except where such conduct violated “clearly established” law. Sherman v. … The Supreme Court’s test for qualified immunity has been summarized by this Court as follows; In determining whether the right alleged to have been violated was “clearly established,” the constitutional right must be identified

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

Yorzinski v. Imbert

39 F. Supp. 3d 218 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 7, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions” from civil damages liability as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The qualified immunity doctrine involves a two-step analysis: a plaintiff must plead “facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the

People v. Kolanek; People v. King

491 Mich. 382 · Michigan Supreme Court · May 31, 2012

• Require Department of Community Health to establish an identification card system for patients qualified to use marijuana and individuals qualified to grow marijuana. … Registered patients who do not qualify for immunity under § 4, as well as unregistered persons, are entitled to assert in a criminal prosecution the affirmative defense of medical use of marijuana under § 8 of the MMMA,

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.

Tyson v. Willauer

289 F. Supp. 2d 190 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 23, 2003

However, qualified immunity shields them from liability under § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Here, in support of their qualified immunity defense, Defendants assert that no clearly established right was violated and that Defendants’ entry into Plaintiffs’ residence to execute a valid arrest warrant was lawful and

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.”

Maltby v. Winston

36 F.3d 548 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 14, 1994

Inspector Winston’s Qualified Immunity We begin our evaluation of the qualified immunity issue by setting forth Mr. Maltb/s allegations against Inspector Winston. In his complaint, Mr. … City of Milwaukee, 17 F.3d 944, 951 (7th Cir.1994) ("The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of a clearly established constitutional right.”); Apostol v.

Jackson v. Johnson

797 F. Supp. 2d 1057 · District Court, D. Montana · Jul 18, 2011

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields a government actor from a suit for damages if the actor could have reasonably believed his conduct was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information possessed … With that determination it is necessary to turn to the second step in the qualified immunity analysis, i.e., whether the right violated by Deputy Johnson was clearly established in the law as of June 10, 2009. b.

O'Ferrell v. United States

998 F. Supp. 1364 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 24, 1998

J. pp. 4-S (entire discussion of qualified immun.) That proposition is that it has been clearly established since the Supreme Court decided Malley v. … The Eleventh Circuit has noted, since the O’Ferrells’ ease began, that Franks clearly established, for qualified immunity purposes, that an officer may not make an “affirmative misstatement” in ‘applying for a warrant.

Moore v. Hearle

639 F. Supp. 2d 352 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 12, 2009

Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are shielded from liability flowing from their performance of discretionary functions as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established … Granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity is proper “only ‘if the court finds that the asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the evidence is such that, even when it is