Case law

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

Eggleton v. Gluch

717 F. Supp. 1230 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 13, 1989

I conclude that qualified immunity does not apply in either instance because the law was clearly defined in each of these areas. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Prisco v. United States, Department of Justice

851 F.2d 93 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 1, 1988

established law. … In exploring whether a right is clearly established, we must find “some but not precise correspondence” with applicable precedents. People of Three Mile Island v.

Davis v. Tarrant County, Tex.

565 F.3d 214 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 8, 2009

in their judicial capacities when they established and implemented the appointment policy and denied Davis’s application; (2) that the defendant judges were immune from suit in their official capacities under the Eleventh … The 2001 amendment established a much more detailed procedural regime for the appointment of counsel in criminal cases that requires judges in each county to establish standardized countywide procedures.

Williams v. Kaufman County

86 F. Supp. 2d 586 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 7, 2000

Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue. … Before this standard, the parameters of this right were not clearly established or defined. Since these parameters were not clearly defined in April 1995, Sheriff Harris is entitled to qualified immunity.

Comair, Inc. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Airport Corp.

295 S.W.3d 91 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Oct 1, 2009

Despite the frequency of opinions on the subject from this Court, the law of sovereign immunity, and the related doctrines of governmental immunity, official immunity, and qualified official immunity, is still difficult to … Under this test, the Court concluded, “our constitutional fathers would not view this activity as qualifying for sovereign immunity.” Id.

Atherton v. District of Columbia Office of the Mayor

706 F.3d 512 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 8, 2013

of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first” — (1) whether the alleged facts show that the officials’ conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) whether that right was clearly established … II “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.”

Lowther v. Children Youth and Family Department

101 F.4th 742 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 7, 2024

Miles are entitled to qualified immunity because the Lowthers had not shown the alleged violation was clearly established. … We affirmed based on qualified immunity, concluding the law was not clearly established. Id. at 1135–38.

Alston v. City of Detroit Police Officer

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 15, 2024

conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … They develop no argument as to the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Tyquan Stewart v. Parkview Hospital

940 F.3d 1013 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 22, 2019

Police officers enjoy immunity from liability for conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or consti‐ tutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. … In these circumstances, Stewart cannot establish that the officers violated a right clearly established under the Fourth Amendment, and qualified immunity ap‐ plies. Id.; see also Wilson v.

Williams v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIV.

763 N.W.2d 646 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Mar 31, 2009

Qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Maturi, as a government official, receives the protections of qualified immunity when performing dis *655 cretionary functions unless he could reasonably be expected to recognize that his conduct would violate clearly established

Thompson v. Williamson County, Tenn.

965 F. Supp. 1026 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Apr 17, 1997

the defendant did acts that violate clearly established rights. … In other words, if genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the defendants actually did commit acts that would violate a clearly established right, then summary judgment on qualified immunity is improper.

Farm Labor Organizing Committee v. Ohio State Highway Patrol

308 F.3d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 17, 2002

Pursuant to this doctrine, federal appellate courts have jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals concerning “the legal question of qualified immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law … Instead, Kiefer properly limits his appeal to “neat abstract issues of law” relating to qualified immunity — i.e., whether the facts alleged by the plaintiffs demonstrate a violation of clearly established law.

Lehman v. Robinson

228 F. App'x 697 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 16, 2007

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Second, and only if a constitutional right was violated, we consider whether the right was clearly established such that a reasonable officer would believe the alleged conduct was unlawful.

Killebrew v. City of Greenwood, Miss.

988 F. Supp. 1010 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Nov 3, 1997

If so, the court must then decide whether the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the events in question. Id. … There can certainly be no dispute that the right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment was clearly established at the time of the events in question.

Hall v. Ryan

957 F.2d 402 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 28, 1992

Judge Baker noted that qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 , 97 S.Ct. 285 , 50 L.Ed.2d 251 , the standard of conduct imposed on defendants with respect to the care of people in custody was clearly established, so that the police officers' qualified immunity defense

Spivey v. Elliott

41 F.3d 1497 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 11, 1995

The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if it is determined that the legal precedents do not reveal that the defendants violated "clearly established … The opinion is fully reaffirmed, however, on the holding that there was no constitutional duty clearly established at the time of the sexual assault, so the defendant officials were properly entitled to qualified immunity

Doe v. Hazard

152 F. Supp. 3d 859 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jan 15, 2016

The -plaintiff bears the burden of showing that a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity, O’Malley v. … The Court also finds no binding case law that any of Simpson’s alleged conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Glenda Smith v. City of Wyoming

821 F.3d 697 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 15, 2016

It is sufficient to hold that, even viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Smith, Officer Riggs did not violate clearly established law, and he therefore was protected by qualified immunity. … Turning to the clearly established law question, we must first ask whether the Ohio law defining obstruction of official business is clearly established. We conclude that it is.

Transcare Maryland, Inc. v. Murray

431 Md. 225 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 22, 2013

The County noted that, while the firefighter was clearly immune under the Good Samaritan Act, “[t]he volunteer fire department, however, is a private nonprofit corporation which does not appear to have the statutory immunity … Act, regardless of whether the company’s employee may qualify for immunity under the statute.