Case law

Johnnie Savory v. Allen Andrews

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 14, 2026

The officers in this case are entitled to qualified immunity only if their interrogation techniques did not violate Savory’s clearly established right to due process. Rivas-Villegas v. … Regardless, focusing on this difference is too myopic an approach given that Savory need only present similar—not identical—cases to satisfy qualified immunity’s “clearly established” requirement.

Rasanen Ex Rel. Estate of Rasanen v. Brown

603 F. Supp. 2d 550 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 25, 2009

Here, Brown and Etherton seek summary judgment on the basis that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Burge v. Ferguson

619 F. Supp. 2d 1225 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 16, 2008

established Fourth Amendment right. 12 Accordingly, qualified immunity is unavailable at this stage. … But see Thomas, 463 F.3d at 293-94 (concluding that “a plaintiff has no obligation to plead a violation of clearly established law in order to avoid dismissal on qualified immunity grounds.”). 8 ."

Heggs v. Grant

73 F.3d 317 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 22, 1996

On the appeal of a nonfinal order denying qualified immunity, we have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to decide whether the conduct complained of violated "clearly established statutory or … No clearly established law required him to take further measures to protect her.

Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections

114 F. Supp. 3d 323 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · May 26, 2015

Gillock, the Supreme Court acknowledged its grant of “common-law absolute immunity from civil suit” to state legislators in Tenney v. Brandhove, but qualified its holding. Id. at 372 , 100 S.Ct. 1185 . … The state legislative privilege — like state legislative immunity — likewise may become qualified based on the nature of the claim at issue.

Madiwale v. Savaiko

117 F.3d 1321 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 25, 1997

Lanier, --- U.S. ----, ----, 117 S.Ct. 1219, 1227, 137 L.Ed.2d 432 (1997).1 The qualified immunity inquiry, then, must establish first, whether the defendant government official was performing a discretionary function … Thus, we cannot say that Savaiko violated clearly established law by reporting Madiwale to the DPR, and she is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on this issue.

Rettele v. Los Angeles County

186 F. App'x 765 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 21, 2006

Having determined that Plaintiffs’ factual allegations, if true, may establish a constitutional violation, we turn our attention to whether the law was clearly established, such that a reasonable officer would have known … to qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage.

Charles Ivey v. Pat Hamlin

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Mar 18, 2002

violate the clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … When a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the rights he or she is asserting have been clearly established. Perkins v.

Gustafson v. Thomas

75 F. Supp. 3d 876 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 16, 2014

City of Chic., 865 F.2d 827 , 846 (7th Cir. 1989) (examining only cases decided before the events at issue in analyzing how clearly established the law was for qualified immunity). … Whatever the implications of potential violations of Illinois law, these alleged violations have no bearing on whether the law was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. .

Trulock v. Freeh

275 F.3d 391 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 28, 2001

The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that the Defendants, having violated no clearly established law, were entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Hatheway v. Thies

335 F.3d 1199 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 18, 2003

In arguing that they are entitled to qualified immunity, the detectives contend that (1) the law was not clearly established as to whether Mr. … Denial of Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is available to government officials when “their -11- conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Harris v. Board of Education

105 F.3d 591 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 23, 1997

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from "liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … him his salary and benefits violated clearly established law.

Hogan ex rel. J.H. v. County of Lewis

929 F. Supp. 2d 130 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 8, 2013

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials acting in their capacity from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not “violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively reasonable … The party invoking qualified immunity bears the burden of offering proof that it was objectively reasonable for her to believe that her actions did not violate a clearly established right and that she is entitled to qualified

Fabrikant v. French

691 F.3d 193 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 16, 2012

arguendo that the SPCA investigators were state actors, they would be entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Analysis “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutorily or constitutional rights of

Muszik v. Town of Redington Shores, Florida

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 20, 2024

Callahan, 55 U.S. 223, 236 (2009) (courts considering qualified immunity are permitted to address whether a constitutional right is clearly established before determining whether it was violated). … A plaintiff seeking to meet her burden under the second step of the qualified immunity analysis can demonstrate that a right or law was clearly established in three ways. See, e.g., Loftus v.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 19, 2001

The city might further face liability under federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , for the violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

de Veloz v. Miami-Dade County

255 F. Supp. 3d 1222 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 8, 2017

Once a qualified immunity defense has been asserted, unless Plaintiffs’ “allegations state a claim of violation1 of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement … Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.”

Lamonte Jackson-Gibson v. Reginald Beasley

118 F.4th 848 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 15, 2024

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages under § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established.”

Wiley v. Doory

14 F.3d 993 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 27, 1994

The only issue before this Court is whether Doory is entitled to qualified immunity. 6 4 * Qualified immunity shields a governmental official from liability for civil monetary damages if the officer's "conduct does not violate … Thus, appellant Doory is entitled to qualified immunity.

Pisciotti v. County of Wayne

76 F. Supp. 2d 307 · District Court, W.D. New York · Dec 21, 1999

“The doctrine of qualified immunity ‘shields government officials from liability for damages on account of their performance of discretionary official functions insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Further, even if the plaintiffs rights were clearly established, a government actor is entitled to qualified immunity if at the time of the challenged act it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his actions