Case law

Adams v. St. Lucie County Sheriff's Department

962 F.2d 1563 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 15, 1992

The court concluded in Ansley that “[t]he Supreme Court’s qualified immunity precedent aims at one goal: to keep the public official out of the courtroom, free to exercise discretionary duties under clearly established law … ’ conduct violated that clearly established law?

Richard Christopher Johnson v. City of Miami Beach

18 F.4th 1267 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 19, 2021

Qualified Immunity We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Cantu, 974 F.3d at 1228. … Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Corbin v. City of Springfield

942 F. Supp. 721 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 30, 1996

Qualified Immunity Rooke alleges that she is entitled to qualified immunity on Counts VI and VII because the asserted rights of the plaintiff and his wife were not clearly established as of December 27,1991. … In weighing the defense of qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, this court must first identify the applicable law and then determine whether this law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

Wilson v. Blankenship

163 F.3d 1284 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 31, 1998

General propositions and abstractions do not qualify for bright line, clearly established law. See Lassiter, 28 F.3d at 1150. … detainees housed there or specific square footage for inmates to exercise violates no clearly established law for qualified immunity purposes, as we clarify. 1.

Miley v. Housing Authority

926 F. Supp. 2d 420 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 25, 2013

Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability where the officials’ conduct was not in violation of a ‘clearly established’ constitutional right.” Sudler v. … by qualified immunity.”

Meyer v. Town of Buffalo

482 F.3d 1232 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 16, 2007

To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, the judge noted, a plaintiff is required to show that the defendants’ actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right, and that the right violated was clearly … Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991) (per curiam), for the principle that an officer must be granted qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed, a reasonable officer

Gary Vickery, Cross-Appellee v. Janell Jones, William Pearman and Kirk Brown, and Saline County Republican Central Committee and William Roberts

100 F.3d 1334 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 22, 1996

Second, if so, was the unconstitutionality clearly established or are the state defendants entitled to qualified immunity? Third, did [the plaintiff] suffer an injury by virtue of the defendants’ actions? … Qualified immunity shields government officials who are performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Copper v. City of Fargo

905 F. Supp. 680 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Dec 30, 1994

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from suit if, at the time of the challenged acts, it was not clearly established that those actions would violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would … The qualified immunity defense may still be viable even when the plaintiff establishes the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, if the defendant can demonstrate the “objective legal reasonableness” of

May v. Higgins

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 24, 2021

Qualified immunity protects government officials who acted in an objectively reasonable manner and shields them from liability when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, such that reasonable officials would not have known their actions were unlawful.

Ricky Tatum v. Willie Robinson

858 F.3d 544 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 30, 2017

The district court denied Robinson qualified immunity. Robinson appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, see Mitchell v. … To overcome an assertion of qualified immunity, a plaintiff “must present sufficient facts to show not only (1) that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, but also (2) that the right was clearly established

Ward v. Members of the Board of Control of Eastern Michigan University

700 F. Supp. 2d 803 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 24, 2010

Qualified immunity protects state officials sued in their individual capacities from civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … whether the constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Knighton v. Benton County, MS

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 6, 2026

Qualified Immunity When considering a qualified immunity defense, we must determine whether the defendant violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights and, if so, whether defendant violated clearly established law. … And it is clearly established. Good v.

BK v. Toumpas

909 F. Supp. 2d 60 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 14, 2012

“Qualified immunity shields ... state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a constitutional or statutory right and (2) that the right was clearly established … In any event, a single decision from another district court does not provide the "fair warning” of clearly established law necessary to overcome the defendants' qualified immunity defense. See Lynch v.

King v. Jefferies

402 F. Supp. 2d 624 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 25, 2005

clearly established answers. … “If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful,” qualified immunity should be granted. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. at 2156.

Washington v. Buraker

322 F. Supp. 2d 702 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jun 23, 2004

If the answer to that threshold question is yes, the officer may still be entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established at the time of the events at issue. Clem v. … established now, and was clearly established in 1983.

Wark v. Board of County Commissioners

47 P.3d 711 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 2002

Because the trial court's finding is not clearly erroneous, we may not disturb it. B. … Although the county argued that plaintiffs' claims were barred under the qualified immunity doctrine, the trial court's ruling is primarily based on the insufficiency of the allegations in the complaint.

Jacobs v. West Feliciana Sheriff's Dept.

228 F.3d 388 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 13, 2000

To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, we must determine: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the defendant's … the first hurdle in defeating the defendants' qualified immunity defense. 13 The second part of our qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the defendants' conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly

Schulthies v. National Passenger Rr Corp.

650 F. Supp. 2d 994 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 17, 2009

The defense 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 … A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and whether such right was clearly established such that it would be clear

Doane v. Helenville Mutual Insurance Co.

216 Wis. 2d 345 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Jan 29, 1998

Rather, the parties' *352 disagreement centers on whether Ehle qualifies as an "owner" entitled to immunity under the statute either because his shanty constitutes a statutory "structure," or because he is an "occupier," … CONCLUSION A portable ice shanty located on a frozen lake does not qualify as recreational "property" and is insufficient to establish its owner as an "occupant" of the lake entitled to recreational immunity.

Mark v. Shoen Edward J. Shoen v. Leonard Samuel Shoen Christina G. Shoen, Ronald J. Watkins, Witness-Appellant

48 F.3d 412 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 15, 1995

Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 , 92 S.Ct. 2646 , 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972), as establishing a qualified privilege for journalists against compelled disclosure of information gathered in the course of their work. … As a result, Leonard Shoen’s September 1991 statements, if any, regarding his attitude toward plaintiffs are not clearly relevant to an important issue in this litigation. 1 Although plaintiffs’ failure to establish clear