Case law

Parks v. City of Warner Robins, Ga.

841 F. Supp. 1205 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jan 14, 1994

Qualified Immunity The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has adopted an objective-reasonableness test for determining whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity. See Courson v. … Under this analysis, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) the law was not clearly established, or (2) the law was clearly established but the defendant did not violate the law. Id. n. 14. A.

Wilkerson v. Stalder

329 F.3d 431 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 14, 2003

The court must engage in a two-step analysis to determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity. … First, the court must determine whether the plaintiff’s allegations make out a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Daniel Houlihan v. City of Chicago

871 F.3d 540 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 8, 2017

To thwart qualified immunity, the plaintiffs had to prove two things: “first, that the facts alleged describe a vi- olation of a protected right; and second, that this right was clearly established at the time of the defendant's … Cook County Sheriff’s Office—decided four years after the police department reassigned them—the Northern Dis- trict of Illinois granted qualified immunity after concluding that the law did not clearly establish that the security-special

Ronald Fosnight v. Robert Jones

41 F.4th 916 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 27, 2022

Qualified im- munity protects government officials from damages liability unless they “violate clearly established statutory or constitu- 3 We note for completeness that the Supreme Court has never authorized a Bivens action … The district court may entertain a qualified-immunity defense on a defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Constance Westfall v. Jose Luna

903 F.3d 534 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 13, 2018

As is well-established, “qualified immunity means immunity from having to stand trial, not simply immunity from monetary liability.” Id. … “[I]t is clearly established that ‘a consent which waives Fourth Amendment rights may be limited, qualified, or withdrawn.’” Gates v. Tex.

Lorne Battiste v. Sheriff of Broward County

261 F. App'x 199 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 7, 2008

A defense of qualified immunity may be addressed in a motion to dismiss, which will be granted if the “complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” St. George v. … The Supreme Court has established a two-part test for determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity.

Berryman v. Niceta

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 8, 2025

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … those rights were clearly established at the time.”

Visser v. Magnarelli

542 F. Supp. 1331 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 9, 1982

Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 , 100 S.Ct. 1920, 1924 , 64 L.Ed.2d 572 (1980), clearly requires a defendant to plead a defense of qualified immunity, as defendants-councilors have done here. … Treen, 671 F.2d 892, 899-900 (5th Cir. 1982) (violation of clearly established state law vitiates objective prong of good faith immunity defense).

Kennedy v. Lehman

328 F. App'x 16 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 6, 2009

A grant of qualified immunity allows public officials to be “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Be *20 cause the Individual Defendants did not violate a First Amendment right clearly-established as of 2002, we conclude that they are entitled to qualified immunity, and the district court must be reversed.

Jeffrey M. Kuha v. City of Minnetonka

328 F.3d 427 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 8, 2003

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, state actors are protected from civil liability when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … The qualified immunity inquiry is a two-step process.

Cindy Abbott v. Sangamon County

705 F.3d 706 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 29, 2013

Governmental actors performing discretionary func- tions are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … immunity on Travis’s excessive-force claim because he did not violate clearly established law.

Estrella v. Menifee

275 F. Supp. 2d 452 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 17, 2003

Qualified Immunity Assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff has adequately alleged a violation of his constitutional rights, defendants would still be dismissed from this lawsuit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Here, plaintiff fails the second and third prongs of the qualified immunity analysis.

Harcz v. Boucher

300 F. Supp. 3d 945 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jan 2, 2018

immunity because the Sixth Circuit's prior case law clearly established that the officers' conduct was unlawful. … "clearly established" prong.

Whitfield v. Municipality of Fajardo

279 F. Supp. 2d 115 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 19, 2003

Government officials are generally immune from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable person should have known of at the time of the conduct … Second, these rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Pam Good v. Barbara Olk-Long

71 F.3d 314 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 8, 1995

We need only to pass upon the question of qualified immunity. … It is well settled that qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for money damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable official

Martin v. City of Oklahoma City

180 F. Supp. 3d 978 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Apr 14, 2016

Plaintiffs Claim of Retaliatory Arrest The Officers contend they are entitled to qualified immunity from liability on Plaintiffs claim of retaliatory arrest because it was not clearly established in October 2011 that an individual … D.Plaintiff’s Claim of Conspiracy The Officers contend they are entitled to qualified immunity from liability on Plaintiffs conspiracy claim because it was not clearly established in October 2011 that an evidentiary cover-up

Harper v. Carbon County School District

105 F. Supp. 3d 1317 · District Court, D. Utah · Apr 24, 2015

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields from liability “government officials performing discretionary functions ... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … But even if the court concluded that Defendants did violate a right, qualified immunity still applies because the right is not clearly established.

Zulock v. Shures

441 F. App'x 294 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 22, 2010

Qualified immunity recognizes that the public interest is best served when officials can act “with independence and without fear of consequences” so long as their actions do not violate clearly established rights. … The second prong of the Saucier qualified immunity analysis asks whether *303 the constitutional violation in question “involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Stephen G. Loftus v. Ester Clark-Moore

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 13, 2012

The district court ruled that Clark-Moore and Ferguson were entitled to qualified immunity because neither social worker had violated a clearly established federal right of Loftus or his children. … Ferguson is entitled to qualified immunity because the threats that she allegedly made did not violate any clearly established federal right.

Moss v. Kopp

505 F. Supp. 2d 1120 · District Court, D. Utah · Feb 16, 2007

; and accordingly, (3) the court need not address qualified immunity. … Because both orders clearly fall under his statutory authority, he would qualify for judicial immunity. Consequently, Defendants satisfy the first step of the quasi-judicial immunity analysis. 2.