Case law

Estate of Davis Ex Rel. McCully v. City of North Richland Hills

406 F.3d 375 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 11, 2005

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.”17 Qualified immunity is … violated clearly established law.

Spruytte v. Hoffner

197 F. Supp. 2d 931 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Mar 30, 2001

The Sixth Circuit determined that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the law concerning a prisoner’s retaliation claim was not “clearly established” for purposes of the qualified immunity defense prior … because the law was not clearly established.

Murphy v. New York Racing Ass'n, Inc.

76 F. Supp. 2d 489 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 6, 1999

qualified immunity. … Clearly Established Law Having determined that qualified immunity is generally available to the Board Defendants, it remains to determine whether their assertion of it satisfies the requirements set forth by the Supreme Court

Harris v. Board of Education

105 F.3d 591 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 23, 1997

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from "liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … him his salary and benefits violated clearly established law.

David K. Huskey v. City of San Jose Joan Gallo George Rios Ralph Greene

204 F.3d 893 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 24, 2000

immunity because the right violated was clearly established at the time of the violation. … immunity because those rights were not clearly established.

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.

Washington v. Fenty

611 F. Supp. 2d 45 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 29, 2009

were violated were not clearly established. … A defense of qualified immunity fails only if the officer has violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).

Hyatt v. Town of Lake Lure

225 F. Supp. 2d 647 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 26, 2002

Defendants argue in their reply brief for the first time that they are also covered by qualified immunity in that they have not violated any clearly established rights. … Qualified Immunity In their reply brief, the Defendants raise for the first time the defense of qualified immunity from suit.

Thomas v. Holt

221 Ga. App. 345 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · May 9, 1996

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials (and the other burdens of litigation, including discovery) and from liability if their conduct violates no ‘clearly established … For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government

Duran v. City Of Douglas

904 F.2d 1372 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 4, 1990

However, the Supreme Court has established a limited exception to this rule: "[A] district court's denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable 'final decision' … The legal issues involved in that appeal--whether Aguilar violated clearly established constitutional protections--are identical to those governing the question of Aguilar's qualified immunity.

Marshall v. Montaplast of N. Am., Inc.

575 S.W.3d 650 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 2019

This Court held that the rule prohibiting noncompete agreements qualified as such. Id. … Immunity is a shield. It frees a party from the burden of litigation. It does not create a sword or a right to engage in an act.

Israel Alicea Rosado v. Carmen Sonia Zayas, Secretary of the Department of Social Services of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Gaddiel Morales Burgos v. Patria Custodio

813 F.2d 1263 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 20, 1987

Fair, 804 F.2d 164 (1st Cir.1986), the right at issue was one applicable to all persons, and the qualified immunity question therefore simply was whether it was clearly established that an individual had a right to be free … Thus, in asking the qualified immunity question, we must recognize the individual nature of the right allegedly violated and ask whether it was clearly established that someone in the particular position before us was entitled

Castagna v. Jean

955 F.3d 211 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 10, 2020

Further, they argued that were entitled to qualified immunity on the same grounds and because the law on community caretaking in 2013 did not clearly establish that their entry violated either brother's constitutional … The Officers Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Because in 2013 the Law Was Not Clearly Established that Entering the Home Was Unconstitutional Under the Community Caretaking Exception The officers are entitled

Cavanagh v. Taranto

95 F. Supp. 3d 220 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2015

What an Objectively Reasonable Official Would Believe Under the Circumstances Although the right Cavanagh alleges is clearly established, to avoid qualified immunity the bounds and contours of a violation of that right must … suicide — “violated clearly established law.”

Kevin Lipman v. Armond Budish

974 F.3d 726 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 4, 2020

Even had Defendants adequately argued the qualified immunity point, the right that they infringed upon was clearly established at the time of their actions in this case. … And in Nelson, this Court directly addressed qualified immunity with respect to state-created danger, rejecting the officer’s claim to qualified immunity because Kallstrom clearly established that the state may not affirmatively

Elizabeth Fujiwara v. Charles G. Clark, Etc.

703 F.2d 357 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 1, 1983

Strickland rule, the immunity defense would be unavailing to petitioners if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

T.S.H. v. Green

996 F.3d 915 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 11, 2021

The officers moved to dismiss the complaint based on qualified immunity. The district court concluded, however, that the students adequately alleged violations of clearly established constitutional and statutory rights. … The officers thus did not violate the students’ clearly established rights under the Fourth Amendment, so they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. B.

Latherian Harris v. City of Saginaw, Mich.

62 F.4th 1028 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 20, 2023

We evaluate qualified immunity in two, non-sequential steps: whether “the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right” and whether that right was “clearly established.” Saucier v. … And because there is reason to believe that this arrest violated Harris’s clearly established constitutional right, none of the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Hudson v. Hudson

475 F.3d 741 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 26, 2007

Page 3 liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200 (2001), to decide first whether the defendant’s conduct violated a federal right held by the plaintiff, id., and second whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

White v. Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama

31 F. Supp. 2d 953 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Jan 15, 1999

Harbert has set forth a general principle of law, but we have held time and again that clearly established general principles of law will seldom if ever suffice to strip a defendant of qualified immunity. … qualified immunity.