Case law

Vose v. Kliment

506 F.3d 565 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 26, 2007

Kliment and Rouse moved to dismiss the case, asserting that they were entitled to qualified immunity against Vose’s claims because the applicable law on the rights of government employees to speak out was not clearly established … Secondly, they claim that the rights Vose alleges were violated were not clearly established at the time of the relevant events. To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, we look to two issues.

Natasha Whitley v. John Hanna

726 F.3d 631 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 8, 2013

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages liability when their actions could reasonably have been believed to be legal.” Morgan v. … Therefore, a plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity must show: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged

Sloman v. Tadlock

21 F.3d 1462 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 14, 1994

Qualified Immunity 9 Because many of the relevant facts were in dispute, the district court submitted the qualified immunity determination to the jury. 3 The jury rejected Hale's claim to qualified immunity. … The determination of qualified immunity 11 necessitates three inquiries: (1) the identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) the determination of whether that right was so "clearly established" as to alert

Simms v. Constantine

113 Md. App. 291 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 29, 1997

Ironically, it would mean that the police, who do not ordinarily hold law degrees, would be required to know the clearly established law, but prosecutors would not. 500 U.S. at 495 , 111 S.Ct. at 1944 (citations omitted). … Fitzgerald (1982), we "completely reformulated qualified immunity,” replacing the common-law subjective standard with an *314 objective standard that allows liability only where the official violates "clearly established

Sophia Wilansky v. Morton County, North Dakota

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 24, 2026

To overcome qualified immunity, Wilansky must point to law clearly establishing that Officer Moll seized her. Keup, -7- 159 F.4th at 538. … But because qualified immunity is at issue, she has to show that violation was clearly established. See, e.g., Webster v. St.

Howard Lockridge v. Bd. of Trustees etc.

315 F.3d 1005 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 14, 2003

Jones’s request for qualified immunity. All of the defendants appeal. Mr. … Jones was not entitled to qualified immunity. On appeal, Dr. Jones contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Mr.

Oliver v. Arnold

3 F.4th 152 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 29, 2021

right was clearly established at the time of their conduct. … Qualified immunity yields only where an official violates “clearly established law,” meaning binding authority “that defines the contours of the right in question with a high degree of particularity.” Morgan v.

Fils v. City of Aventura

768 F. Supp. 2d 1188 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 23, 2010

If he did, qualified immunity applies. … Thus, absent clearly established precedent condemning a factually similar type of arrest, a police officer can generally still claim qualified immunity based on arguable probable cause.

Carter v. Butts County

110 F. Supp. 3d 1325 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jun 2, 2015

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In wrongful arrest cases, the Eleventh Circuit has “defined the ‘clearly-established’ prong as an ‘arguable probable cause’ inquiry.” Moran v.

Doninger v. Niehoff

594 F. Supp. 2d 211 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 15, 2009

Doninger seeks to enforce was not clearly established at the time of the events in question, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Ms. Doninger’s blog entry First Amendment claim. … qualified immunity.

Robey v. Chester County

946 F. Supp. 333 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 1996

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), a court determines qualified immunity according to an objective standard: an official’s conduct must not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Only federal constitutional and statutory rights can be considered in evaluating a claim for qualified immunity under Harlow ; violations of clearly established state law alone are not sufficient. Davis v.

Lee v. Arapahoe County

197 F.3d 1291 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 1, 1999

We affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Mr. … The final step in reviewing the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Mr. Gibbs is to determine whether the right violated was clearly established at the time of Mr. Lee’s termination. Siegert v.

Losch v. Borough Of Parkesburg

736 F.2d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 14, 1984

Kleindienst, 729 F.2d 267, 273 (3d Cir.1984). 26 Qualified immunity protects a defendant who failed to observe a right or a legal standard that was not clearly established when the defendant acted. … On the other hand, as the Harlow Court concluded, "[i]f the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail," unless the defendant "claims extraordinary circumstances and can prove that he neither

Doe v. Marsh

105 F.3d 106 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 22, 1997

“Even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him … ‘clearly established’ at the. time [the action] was taken.”)

Jaggers v. Zolliecoffer

290 Ark. 250 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 3, 1986

was not entitled to a qualified immunity. … Forsyth, supra, it is clearly stated that the qualified immunity of federal officials is an immunity from suit, citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).

Cozzo v. Tangipahoa Parish Council-President Government

279 F.3d 273 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 10, 2002

They maintain that they are entitled to qualified immunity from Ms. Cozzo’s claims because interpretation of the TRO to require her eviction was clearly within Captain People’s discretionary authority. … Cozzo clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, we are required to address only the second pro ng of the qualified immunity test, that is, whether Deputy Joiner’s actions were objectively reasonable.

Hegarty v. Somerset County

848 F. Supp. 257 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 23, 1994

Qualified Immunity All Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The standard for qualified immunity is that “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Heap v. Carter

112 F. Supp. 3d 402 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 1, 2015

Qualified immunity is available where a govérnment official performing discretionary functions “does not violate clearly established statutory-or constitutional rights of which a- reasonable person would have known.” … and if other appellate federal courts have split on the question of whether an asserted right exists, the right cannot be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.

John Crosetto v. State Bar of Wisconsin

12 F.3d 1396 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 24, 1994

Where the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is properly raised, “the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of the allegedly clearly established constitutional right.” Rakovich v. … Since Smay properly raised this defense, unless Plaintiffs can show that a sufficient consensus clearly established the existence of a violated constitutional right, Smay' will receive qualified immunity from Plaintiffs’

D.H., Ex Rel. Dawson v. Clayton County School District

830 F.3d 1306 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 29, 2016

Clearly Established Law “A right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes in one of three ways: (1) case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional right; (2) a broad … established constitutional right and is entitled to qualified immunity against D.H.’s § 1983 claim.