Case law

75 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 1854, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 989 Debra A. Braddy v. Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Douglas Jamerson, Secretary of Labor, Robert Lynch, in His Individual Capacity, E. Kathryn Davis, in Her Individual Capacity

133 F.3d 797 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 21, 1998

In finding Lynch ineligible for qualified immunity and Davis deserving of qualified immunity, we affirm in part and reverse in part. I. … authority, violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

DeBellis v. Kulp

166 F. Supp. 2d 255 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2001

Qualified immunity shields state officials performing discretionary functions from suit for damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … The next inquiry in the qualified immunity analysis is whether the right allegedly infringed was clearly established at the time of the encounter.

Evans v. City of San Diego

913 F. Supp. 2d 986 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 19, 2012

“Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … For example, “qualified immunity is available if a reasonable police officer could have believed that his ... conduct was lawful, in light of the clearly established law- and the information” possessed by the officer at the

Delgado v. City of New York

86 A.D.3d 502 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 28, 2011

“A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … To be entitled to qualified immunity, it must be established that it was objectively reasonable for the police officer involved to believe that his or her conduct was appropriate under the circumstances, or that officers

Goldwire v. City of Philadelphia

130 F. Supp. 3d 936 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 2015

An officer asserting an' entitlement to qualified immunity must claim that his conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would have known. Behrens v. … violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established.

Cora Arrington v. William McDonald Robert Nill

808 F.2d 466 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 30, 1986

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), a defendant may establish an entitlement to qualified immunity by “proving either that the law was not clearly established at the time of plaintiff’s alleged … injury, or, if the law was clearly established, that he neither knew or should have known of the relevant standard due to extraordinary circumstances.”

Borucki v. Ryan

658 F. Supp. 325 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 20, 1986

established and Ryan would be entitled to qualified immunity under Harlow v. … Moreover, this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation, so defendant Ryan may not successfully invoke qualified good faith immunity at this stage.

Beverly Getz v. J. Swoap

833 F.3d 646 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 16, 2016

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability in the performance of their duties so long “as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry: (1) whether a constitutional right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was clearly established, though the steps need not be taken in that order.

Romero v. City of Clanton

220 F. Supp. 2d 1313 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 11, 2002

When qualified immunity is asserted as a defense, a court must first determine whether the violation of a constitutional right is asserted, then determine whether that right was clearly established. See Wilson v. … is clearly established.

Barnes v. Dale

530 So. 2d 770 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 24, 1988

Paul answered the complaint on January 3, 1986, and raised "qualified immunity" as an affirmative defense. Harpole, Dr. Barnes, and Dr. … This defendant's function clearly required due care rather than difficult decision making. On the other hand, we accepted the claim of immunity in Gill v.

Bensch v. Metropolitan Dade County

798 F. Supp. 678 · District Court, S.D. Florida · May 4, 1992

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985), the Supreme Court reiterated: “Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, however, so it may only be asserted in a 12(b)(6) motion when the “complaint itself establishes ... qualified immunity.” Green v.

John Sabo v. Megan Erickson

128 F.4th 836 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 31, 2025

Qualified Immunity and Clearly Established Law A constitutional or statutory right is “clearly established” when the law is “‘sufficiently clear’ that every ‘reasonable of- ficial would understand that what he is doing’ is … For a discussion about the future of qualified immunity, see id. at 560–68.

Brandon Tun v. Joselyn Whitticker and Judith Platz

398 F.3d 899 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 16, 2005

Analysis of whether qualified immunity applies requires a two-step inquiry. … Phrasing it in qualified immunity terms, counsel at oral argument said that the school officials should have known that it is clearly established that they could not discipline Tun when there was no evidence of wrongdoing

Patrizi v. Huff

821 F. Supp. 2d 926 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 26, 2011

The Right is Clearly Established The Court must next consider whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity — whether the constitutional right at issue is clearly established. Saucier v. … In other words, any “objectively reasonable” action by a state officer, as assessed in the light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct at issue, will be protected by qualified immunity.

Baar v. JEFFERSON COUNTY BD. OF EDUC.

666 F. Supp. 2d 701 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Oct 27, 2009

In an extraordinary case, it may be possible for the decisions of other courts to clearly establish a principle of law. … Because Plaintiff's right to attend the LACA meetings was not clearly established at the time of Jury's reprimand, all of the individual defendants should be entitled to qualified immunity on the damages claim. V.

Fletcher v. District of Columbia

481 F. Supp. 2d 156 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 26, 2007

Hence, the second step of the qualified immunity test — whether the constitutional right was clearly established — must be reached here. … The individual defendants are clearly entitled to qualified immunity here.

Keith K. Stevens v. Scott Rose, Esq. Kenny Moore County of Lander, and Troy Hanson

298 F.3d 880 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 2, 2002

Establishing qualified immunity requires that the official’s conduct be objectively reasonable “as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v. … We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of Hanson’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity. AFFIRMED. 1 .

State v. Jones

213 Neb. 1 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1982

The court specifically found that the defendant’s immunized testimony established that, although the defendant in this case was not the actual killer in the Iowa case, “he was clearly liable, but for the State of Iowa’s grant … The court then held that the second clause of aggravating circumstance (l)(a) was clearly applicable beyond a reasonable doubt based upon the defendant’s previous involvement in the Iowa murder reflected by the immunized

Alberto F. Morales v. James Haynes and Virginia Perez, Revenue Officers of Irs

890 F.2d 708 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 9, 1989

We hold that the plaintiffs have not shown that the defendants violated any “clearly established” right and that the defendants are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. We therefore reverse. … established” as to deprive the defendant of his qualified immunity. 702 F.2d at 584 .

Jon Holland v. Martin Simmerman

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 25, 2026

“Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct did not ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … To overcome dismissal based on qualified immunity, “the plaintiff must plead facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of