Case law

Kissner v. Orr

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 17, 2022

The Court, however, did not dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Orr or Rogers based on qualified immunity. … See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19 (“If the law at that time was not clearly established, an official could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments, nor could he fairly be said to “know” that

Warnock v. Pecos County, Texas

116 F.3d 776 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 3, 1997

The judges filed a response in which they argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity. … Clearly established law will not defeat qualified immunity if “an objectively reasonable view of the facts” might lead an official not to realize that he was breaking the law. Matherne v.

Robert Bethel v. Charlotte Jenkins

988 F.3d 931 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 25, 2021

immunity and failing to find that Defendants violated Bethel’s clearly established rights. … Finally, the district court agreed with the magistrate judge that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities because they did not violate Bethel’s clearly established rights under the First

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.”

Vance v. Barrett

345 F.3d 1083 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 30, 2003

deciding whether the prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity: “(1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established? … In 1995, we held that our law regarding retaliation against inmates was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, see Schroeder v.

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

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.

Robert O’CONNOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Walter H. Clark, Robert E. Paaswell, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

985 F.2d 1362 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 12, 1993

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … It is the plaintiff who bears the burden of establishing the existence of the allegedly clearly established constitutional right.

Burke v. Twp. of Cheltenham

742 F. Supp. 2d 660 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 2010

Federal “qualified immunity” has been established by case law, Harlow v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , “[u]nless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement

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.

Sampson v. City of Schenectady

160 F. Supp. 2d 336 · District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 16, 2001

Qualified Immunity 1. … General Standard for Qualified Immunity The affirmative defense of qualified immunity “shields public officials from liability for their discretionary acts that do ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

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."

Kyle Beatty v. Clinton Gardner

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 16, 2026

But because that limit was not clearly established at the time, qualified immunity shields them from liability. So we will affirm the District Court’s summary judgment for the officers. I. … Several of our sister circuits have previously granted qualified immunity from similar claims, reasoning that there is no clearly established “First Amendment right to re- main silent when questioned by the police.”

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

Doe v. Flaherty

623 F.3d 577 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 19, 2010

We first address the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields a public official such as Wilcher from civil lawsuits when her conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”