Case law

Ronald Dean Brown v. Crispus C. Nix John Henry John Emmet Paul Hedgepath Charles Harper Paul Grossheim Hal Farrier

33 F.3d 951 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 18, 1994

They asserted, among other things, that they are immune from suit by reason of qualified immunity. … In order to lose their qualified immunity, officials must violate an inmate’s clearly established constitutional rights. Id.

Dennis Wolfel v. Nick Sanborn

666 F.2d 1005 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 14, 1982

As our decisions make clear, whether such immunity has been established depends on facts peculiarly within the knowledge and control of the defendant. . .. … The burden would then be upon the plaintiff to show either that a subjective, bad faith intent to harm him motivated the official or that the official knew or should have known that his action infringed a clearly established

Felix E. Capoeman v. Amos Reed

754 F.2d 1512 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 22, 1985

Qualified Immunity Even defendants who violate constitutional rights enjoy a qualified immunity that protects them from liability for damages “unless it is further demonstrated that their conduct was unreasonable under the … Nonetheless, we found that the basic fourth amendment rights of students had been sufficiently clearly established at the time to prevent the defendants’ immunity. Id.

Stanley v. Cooper

996 F. Supp. 316 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 10, 1998

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles public officers to be shielded from liability for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … But such actions did not so clearly violate Stanley’s rights that defendant Cooper should be deprived of the defense of qualified immunity.

Sarah Molina v. Daniel Book

59 F.4th 334 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 2, 2023

In the face of a summary-judgment motion seeking qualified immunity, the district court ruled that the claims could proceed to a jury. … It could not have clearly established a First Amendment right to wear the bright green hats.

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

Moxley v. Town of Walkersville

601 F. Supp. 2d 648 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 6, 2009

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 person would have known … Nonetheless, “qualified immunity ... will be upheld on a [Rule] 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint,” Hafley v.

Harrison v. State

203 So. 3d 126 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · Dec 18, 2015

Absent a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary, the language of the statute is conclusive. … We first note that Harrison is not entitled to any relief on his claim that he presented sufficient evidence during trial and after trial to establish that he was immune from prosecution.

Kingsford v. Salt Lake City School District

247 F.3d 1123 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 24, 2001

Fankell , 520 U.S. 911, 915 (1997) (“[A] Federal District Court order rejecting a qualified immunity defense on the ground that the defendant’s actions—if proved—would have violated clearly established law may be appealed … Defendant Shackett also claimed that even if such a right existed it was not clearly established at the time of the events underlying this suit, thus entitling him to qualified immunity.

Tucker v. City Of Richmond

388 F.3d 216 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 10, 2005

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials who perform discretionary functions from civil liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Assuming that "a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties' submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.

Irvin Morales v. CO John Doe #2, Jon Fouts, Roderick Greenwood, and Keith Forcier

2020 DNH 046 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 24, 2020

Qualified Immunity “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 … “‘[C]learly established law’ should not be defined ‘at a high level of generality.’ . . . [T]he clearly established law must be ‘particularized’ to the facts of the case.” White v. Pauly, 137 S.

State v. Melms

101 N.E.3d 747 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 18, 2018

Melms immunity from prosecution due to his confinement is contrary to the policy considerations underlying the immunity statute. {¶ 14} Melms asserts that he is a qualified individual as defined by R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(a)(viii … The newly established immunity from prosecution set out in R.C. 2925.11(B) is not a fundamental right." {¶ 20} According to the State, "the class distinction drawn by this law is based solely on whether an individual has

Sandra Outler v. Kelly Cooper

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 10, 2025

Cooper argues that we have jurisdiction because this appeal presents issues of law re- lating to his qualified-immunity defense. … However, Cooper argues in his merits brief that, even if he violated the Eighth Amendment, that violation was not clearly established at the relevant time, USCA11 Case: 25-11522 Document: 29-2 Date

Vincent v. Sitnewski

117 F. Supp. 3d 329 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 25, 2015

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … And it *343 would undermine the key virtue of qualified immunity doctrine — that if nothing else, the “clearly established” test is objective.

Zuchel v. Spinharney

890 F.2d 273 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 27, 1989

Runner, 854 F.2d 374 (10th Cir.1988): Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects .government officials from personal liability unless their actions violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person … Officer Spinharney concedes that Zu-chel’s right to be free from excessive force is a clearly established right. Opening Brief of Appellant at 24.

Buckley v. BARBOUR COUNTY, ALA.

624 F. Supp. 2d 1335 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 15, 2008

An official is not entitled to qualified immunity if (1) the official’s conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) the violation was “ ‘clearly established.’ ” Id. (quoting Saucier v. … Gamble thus fails the first prong of the qualified immunity test. The violation was also “clearly established,” placing Gamble on fair notice of an unconstitutional violation.

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.

Madden v. Regional University System

73 F. Supp. 3d 1341 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Dec 24, 2014

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials ... from damages unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Elder v. … To rebut a defendant’s qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct

Sharkany v. Bryce

District Court, D. Connecticut · Apr 8, 2020

Qualified Immunity Officer Bryce is also entitled to qualified immunity from liability on the Plaintiff’s claims. … did not violate a clearly established right.

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.