Case law

Vaughn v. Soltis

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 30, 2023

In the qualified immunity context, “[t]he sources of clearly established law to be considered are limited. … Here, the Court proceeds directly to the clearly established step of the qualified immunity analysis: whether it was clearly established at the time of Vaughn’s encounter with the deputies that the

Kelsea Mercer v. Athens Cnty., Ohio

72 F.4th 152 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 29, 2023

Qualified Immunity Nurse Gray, Officer Lowery, and Officer Jarvis assert qualified immunity. … Moreover, “[w]hen federal qualified immunity and Ohio state-law immunity under § 2744.03(A)(6) rest on the same questions of material fact, we may review the state-law immunity defense ‘through the lens of the federal qualified

Erickson v. Hunter

932 F. Supp. 1380 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 10, 1996

DISCUSSION (1) Qualified Immunity Defendant Don Hunter raises the issue of qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity will shield public officials performing discretionary functions only to the extent that their actions do not violate clearly established constitutional rights. Harlow v.

Brown v. Ridgway

845 F. Supp. 2d 1273 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 29, 2012

“Once the defendant establishes that he was acting within his discretionary authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate.” Id. … See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 (“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability under federal law unless their conduct violates a clearly established

Nucor Holding Corp. v. Rinkines

326 Ark. 217 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 7, 1996

The qualified immunity claim is a claim of right which is separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the complaint. . . . … Beaumont, supra, and stated: “The appealability of a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity from suit is clearly established.” Virden v. Roper, 302 Ark. at 128 , 788 S.W.2d at 472 .

Rivers v. O'BRIEN

83 F. Supp. 2d 328 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 21, 2000

Even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him to … In order to trump qualified immunity, the Plaintiffs must demonstrate that (1) Defendants’ conduct violated any of the Plaintiffs’ clearly established rights; and (2) that these rights would have been known to a reasonable

Watson v. Apache County

218 Ariz. 512 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · May 6, 2008

The Watsons challenge the court’s rulings that the County is entitled to qualified immunity and that they failed to *514 present or identify facts or an expert witness to establish gross negligence. … Specifically, they argue that, if the County is not protected by qualified immunity, then the issue of gross negligence is irrelevant.

Alicia Street v. Gerald Leyshock

41 F.4th 987 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 27, 2022

We conclude that the allegations in this case are insufficient to establish a plausible claim that the defendant officers violated any plaintiff’s clearly established right against the use of excessive force. … doctrine means that they did not violate a clearly established right.

Davis v. City of Aurora Ex Rel. Oates

705 F. Supp. 2d 1243 · District Court, D. Colorado · Mar 31, 2010

In considering what law is clearly established, factual novelty alone does not automatically provide a state official with the protections of qualified immunity. … case law to clearly establish the violation.”

Shaw v. Oconee County, Ga.

863 F. Supp. 1578 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Oct 11, 1994

Qualified Immunity The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has adopted an objective-reasonableness test for determining whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity. See Courson v. … Under this analysis, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) the law was not clearly established, or (2) the law was clearly established but the defendant did not violate the law. Id. n. 14.

Loria v. Gorman

306 F.3d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 26, 2002

However, if we decide otherwise, we proceed to “ask whether the right was clearly established” at the time it was allegedly infringed. Id. … Appellants’ Claims of Qualified Immunity A. Qualified Immunity from Claims Arising out of the April 10, 1998 Arrest of Loria for OGA 1.

George v. Beaver County

32 F.4th 1246 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 3, 2022

In the qualified-immunity context, “[a] clearly established right is one that is sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” Cummings v. … Thus, Rose’s conduct did not violate clearly established law, and he is entitled to qualified immunity. The district court properly granted summary judgment to the County, Noel, and Rose.

Debera MacE Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Jacob Vincent Revill, Deceased v. City of Palestine Pat Henderson

333 F.3d 621 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 24, 2003

Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … Claims of qualified immunity require a two-step analysis.

Acevedo-Garcia v. Vera-Monroig

213 F. Supp. 2d 42 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 30, 2002

The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit and liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable … After finding that the law governing the Saucier’s conduct was clearly established, the Ninth Circuit proceeded to consider whether the officer’s conduct was reasonable in light of the clearly established law.

Baribeau v. City of Minneapolis

596 F.3d 465 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 24, 2010

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects the officers from personal liability under § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a county employee may be held personally liable for a constitutional violation only if his own conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Richard Leo Deorle v. Greg Rutherford, Butte County Deputy Sheriff Mick Grey, Butte County Sheriff County of Butte

272 F.3d 1272 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 19, 2001

immunity: notwithstanding the absence of direct precedent, the law may be, as it was here, clearly established. … It does not matter that no case of this court directly addresses the use of such weapons; we have held that ‘[a]n officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every

Musso-Escude v. Edwards

4 P.3d 151 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 17, 2000

is alleged. [22] Qualified immunity protects an official only for those acts done in *156 good faith. [23] In general, executive branch officials are afforded qualified immunity. [24] Where a state actor claims immunity … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials who perform discretionary functions are usually shielded from liability for civil damages if their conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Preston

472 F. Supp. 2d 16 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 30, 2007

third prongs [of the qualified immunity test].” 469 F.3d at 168. … The plaintiff argues that the defendants were on notice that their strip search policy violated clearly established law because “closely analogous cases” clearly established that policies permitting strip searches conducted

Thornton v. City of Macon

132 F.3d 1395 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 13, 1998

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 damages action if his actions did not violate clearly established law. … It is clearly established that the use of excessive force in carrying out an arrest constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment. See Graham v.

David C. Warth v. Thomas Williamson

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 2, 2026

immunity, Warth needed to establish that (1) Williamson violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Casey, 75 F.4th 1176, 1186 (11th Cir. 2023) (“[T]o establish the defense of qualified immunity for a false arrest claim, we have held that an officer need not have actual probable cause, but only arguable