Case law

Morris v. Town of Lexington Alabama

748 F.3d 1316 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 21, 2014

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … rights were “clearly established” when the defendant committed the act complained of.

Daniel Tanner v. Anita Phillips

669 F. App'x 444 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 4, 2016

established right. 2 14-35983 See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the conduct at issue violated a clearly established constitutional right).

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

Medeiros v. Merced County Sheriff Deputy Clark

713 F. Supp. 2d 1043 · District Court, E.D. California · May 5, 2010

Qualified immunity serves to shield government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Thus, Satterfield is not entitled to *1063 qualified immunity for these alleged acts, because they violated the plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights. Id. at 1005-1007. See also Bretz v.

Marjorie Shepherd v. City of Shreveport

920 F.3d 278 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 3, 2019

“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Mace, 333 F.3d at 623. … Shepherd argues that Corporal Tucker is not entitled to qualified immunity because “the constitutional right to be free of deadly force” is clearly established.

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.”

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.

Donahue v. Gavin

280 F.3d 371 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 7, 2002

B. 28 Government officials exercising discretionary functions have qualified immunity from suits seeking damages under § 1983 "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … violated some clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Chew v. Gates

27 F.3d 1432 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 1994

Bagley, 988 F.2d 868 (9th Cir.1993), in which we employed “a two-part analysis” to determine whether the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity: “1) Was the law governing the official's conduct clearly established … 's first question dictates our decision on qualified immunity, and not only when we decide that the law is not clearly established.

Bordas v. Washtenaw County

1 F. Supp. 2d 680 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 2, 1998

A claim of qualified immunity depends on whether the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. Id. at 638-40 ; Harlow v. … To defeat a motion for summary judgment based on a claim of qualified immunity in the Sixth Circuit, a plaintiff must establish two things.

Carrasquillo v. Aponte Roque

682 F. Supp. 137 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 9, 1988

those rights was ‘clearly established in plaintiff's favor.’ ” Juarbe-Angueira v. … Put another way, “only where the action in question is clearly unlawful does a defendant lose his qualified immunity.” Juarbe-Angueira, 831 F.2d at 12 (emphasis in original).

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.

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.

Jennifer Harmon v. Second Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 13, 2025

The court concluded that the Government Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because Harmon failed to show that any constitutional violation was clearly established. … Because Harmon failed to show that the alleged substantive due process violations were clearly established, the Government Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for the § 1983 claims.

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.

Tearpock-Martini v. Borough

98 F. Supp. 3d 697 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2015

For a qualified immunity analysis, therefore, the court must examine: 1) whether the officials violated a constitutional right and 2) whether that right was clearly established at the time. Wright v. … Accordingly, we cannot find that the right was clearly established at the time and qualified immunity applies to the individual defendants.

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

Greffey v. State of Ala. Dept. of Corrections

996 F. Supp. 1368 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Mar 20, 1998

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity insulates governmental officials in their individual capacities from civil lawsuits, so long as the challenged discretionary conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory … were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions____The words ‘clearly established ... constitutional rights’ may not be used to read the defense of immunity out of federal tort law by the facile expedi *1386

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.

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.