Case law

William E. "Buster" Fisher v. Tom E. Harden, in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Morrow County, Ohio

398 F.3d 837 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 25, 2005

First, he claims that because he pleaded facts sufficient to establish a constitutional violation, the district court erred in granting qualified immunity to the Defendants. … the officers were entitled to qualified immunity.

Richard E. Finlan (And Don Venable - Dismissed) v. Dallas Independent School District

Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) · Oct 24, 2002

The defense of qualified immunity shields governmental officials from liability under Section 1983 for civil damages if A their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … It did not address the first inquiry in the qualified immunity analysis; that is, it did not address the question of law whether the law was clearly established in 1992 that the filing of a civil suit, alleged to be malicious

Thelma Hall v. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission, Ron Hopkins

235 F.3d 1065 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 21, 2000

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.” Yowell v. … In response, Hopkins maintains that he is entitled to qualified immunity because, once an employer engages the Pickering balancing test, the right cannot be clearly established.

Better Government Bureau, Inc. v. McGraw

106 F.3d 582 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 6, 1997

We hold, therefore, that an official who performs an act clearly established to be beyond the scope of his discretionary authority is not entitled to claim qualified immunity under § 1983. … established for qualified immunity purposes.”

Kirby Ingram v. Louis Kubik

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 7, 2022

If a defend- ant advances the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, the dis- trict court must dismiss any claims that fail to allege a violation of clearly established law. See id. … The officers are entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails to show either that there was some constitutional violation or that it was clearly established, and we may consider these two elements in either order

William C. Wardlaw v. William R. Pickett, Deputy United States Marshal

1 F.3d 1297 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 6, 1993

Qualified immunity protects a government official from suits for damages if the official’s conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … In general, qualified immunity extends to “government officials performing discretionary functions ... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Evans v. Bayer

684 F. Supp. 2d 1365 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 12, 2010

To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show (1) that the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) that this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id. (citing Wilson v. … Clearly Established “It is ... appropriate for a district court to grant the defense of qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage if the complaint ‘fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional

Searles v. Van Bebber

993 F. Supp. 1350 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 7, 1998

Defendants also claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity, which shields them from liability unless they violated clearly established constitutional or statutory norms. Anderson v. … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct was objectively reasonable in the light of clearly established law and the information which the possessed at the time of the alleged violation. Martin v.

Dall v. Caron

628 A.2d 117 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 8, 1993

The immunity granted in the more limited circumstances described in subpara-graphs A through D is absolute and not qualified by the bad faith proviso in sub-paragraph E. 2 We conclude, therefore, that the summary judgment … The Legislature understood the distinction between qualified and absolute immunity. See House Amendment A to L.D. 923, No. H-158, Statement of Fact (113th Legis.1987); and P.L. 1987, ch. 740, § 8.

Ayers v. Ryan

152 F.3d 77 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 28, 1998

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for damages resulting from the performance of discretionary' official functions if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The district court concluded that Ryan was entitled to qualified immunity because Ayers could not “demonstrate that Ryan’s refusal to call certain witnesses was a clearly established violation of the Due Process Clause.”

Moffitt v. Town Of Brookfield

950 F.2d 880 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 20, 1991

legal rules that were 'clearly established' at the time it was taken." … More precisely, furthermore, it had been clearly established that a contract may vest a right or interest that requires due process protection, see Board of Regents v.

Neague v. Cynkar

258 F.3d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2001

Id. 14 This court has held that the right to be free from excessive force is a clearly established Fourth Amendment right. Walton v. City of Southfield, 995 F.2d 1331, 1342 (6th Cir. 1993). … It would not be necessary to make a qualified immunity analysis.

Cox v. Maine State Police

324 F. Supp. 2d 128 · District Court, D. Maine · May 27, 2004

The crux of the defendants’ objection is the third component of qualified immunity: whether an objectively reasonable officer would have understood that the arrest violated Cox’s clearly established constitutional right to … in the qualified immunity analysis.

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality v. Al-Madhoun

374 Ark. 28 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 19, 2008

The circuit court further ruled that qualified immunity did not apply to the individual defendants because there was an exception to qualified immunity for malicious acts and intentional torts under Ark. … In response, Appellees assert that the employees are not entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities.

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."

Whalen v. Commonwealth

21 Mass. L. Rptr. 193 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jun 26, 2006

not entitled to qualified immunity. … However, in addition to proving that the state or federal right was “clearly established” (because qualified immunity applies under the MCRA), liability under the MCRA requires the additional step of showing that the violation

Leghart Ex Rel. Leghart v. Hauk

25 F. Supp. 2d 748 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Nov 23, 1998

As such, “[qualified immunity protects a police officer from liability if a reasonable competent law enforcement officer would not have known that his actions violated clearly established law.” Harper v. … “The first step is to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Id.

Kaminski v. Anderson

792 F. Supp. 2d 657 · District Court, W.D. New York · May 27, 2011

Tollaksen, 257 Fed.Appx. 400, 401 (2d Cir.2007) (government officers “are protected by qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established law, or it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that … For purposes of qualified immunity, “[a] right is clearly established when the contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right....

Lutfi Saalim v. Walmart, Inc.

97 F.4th 995 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 3, 2024

Qualified Immunity Bretzloff claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity on Saalim’s § 1983 Fourth Amendment claim against him. … entitling them to qualified immunity.

Martinez v. City Of Schenectady

115 F.3d 111 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 13, 1997

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,' Harlow v. … established federal rights. 54 The district court's order denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity is reversed.