Case law

Estate of Simpson v. Yellowstone County

229 F. Supp. 3d 1192 · District Court, D. Montana · Jan 24, 2017

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability so long as the officers’ conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Clearly Established Right Because a constitutional violation has been found, the next step in the qualified immunity analysis is to ask “whether the right was clearly established ... in light of the specific context of the

Johnson v. District of Columbia

67 F. Supp. 3d 157 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 10, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from suit for civil damages unless a plaintiff shows that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and that the right was clearly established … If there is a constitutional violation, the second question is: Whether the right violated was “clearly established?” Id.

Trust & Investment Advisors, Inc. v. Hogsett

830 F. Supp. 463 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 8, 1993

TIA argues that neither are the defendants entitled to qualified immunity, because Count One is for declarative and injunctive relief and Dant had to have known that she was violating TIA’s clearly established rights. … TIA has failed to allege facts which, if proven, would demonstrate that Dant’s actions were objectively unreasonable or violated TIA’s clearly established rights. Dant is thus entitled to qualified immunity.

Harris v. DeBellis

658 F. App'x 940 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 10, 2016

Because De-Bellis asserts qualified immunity, however, we may first consider whether DeBellis violated clearly established law. … Under the clearly established law prong of qualified immunity analysis, DeBellis is entitled to summary judgment unless Harris can identify a genuine issue of fact regarding whether DeBellis had arguable probable cause to

Matthew Schantz v. Benny Deloach

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 26, 2021

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “completely protects government offi- cials performing discretionary functions from suit in their individ- ual capacities unless their conduct violates clearly established USCA11 … As discussed below, we agree with the district court’s deci- sion to dispose of Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim on the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Simmons v. Poe

47 F.3d 1370 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 1, 1995

to qualified immunity. … Immunity may thus be established either on the basis that the right allegedly (or actually) violated was not at the time one “clearly established,” or that, though “clearly established” (and violated), it was one that a “

David v. Giurbino

488 F. Supp. 2d 1048 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 16, 2007

“Clearly Established” Law The second prong of Saucier asks “whether the right was clearly established.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … Because Plaintiff has not shown the violation of a clearly established right under RLUIPA, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiffs claims for damages.

David Wadkins v. Robert Arnold, and the First Bank & Trust Company

214 F.3d 535 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 2, 2000

Second, even if the arrest of Wadkins violated a clearly established constitutional right, Detective Arnold maintains that he is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because he acted reasonably; that is, a reasonable … See Pritchett, 973 F.2d at 316 (“[T]he most obvious possibility [of exceptional circumstances supporting qualified immunity despite the violation of a clearly established constitutional right] is mistaken official advice

Roes ex rel. Bazerman v. Florida Department of Children & Family Services

176 F. Supp. 2d 1310 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 24, 2001

of qualified immunity. … Simply put, “If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.”

Stokes v. City of Chicago

744 F. Supp. 183 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 24, 1990

The standard for granting qualified immunity is well-established. … It is clearly established that the fourth amendment requires truthful factual showing sufficient to constitute probable cause. Franks v.

Cooper v. Whatcom County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 11, 2023

Because of the 2 particularized nature of the qualified immunity analysis, Plaintiffs must establish that “the 3 violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established” for each of the individual Whatcom 4 Deputies … Jefferson fails to establish the objective deliberate indifference standard as a matter of law, 6 so each one is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Dkt. No. 134 at 14–17.

Friedman v. Weiner

515 F. Supp. 563 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 3, 1981

A review of the cases suggests that the individual defendants, if entitled to any immunity, are entitled at most to qualified immunity. … Where a public official has or may have a defense based on qualified immunity, the burden is on the defendant to raise the defense and establish his entitlement to immunity. Gomez v.

Motley v. Parks

432 F.3d 1072 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 29, 2005

If the right was hot clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields the officer from further litigation. Id. … Qualified Immunity Having determined that Motley’s factual allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation, we turn our attention to evaluating whether the law was clearly established such that a reasonable officer

Marten v. Swain

242 F. Supp. 3d 744 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 16, 2017

right, and the designated evidence does not show a violation of any clearly established constitutional right. … As additional bases to defeat qualified immunity, the Martens also assert that Swain violated their clearly established constitutional rights by providing false testimony during the proceedings to further the criminal cases

Ernest Onderik v. Joe P. Morgan

897 F.2d 204 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 10, 1989

Because the defendants did not violate clearly established federal law or knowingly anticipate that their conduct would give rise to constitutional claims, defendants retain the protections of qualified immunity. … To lose the protections of qualified immunity, the federal officials must have violated clearly established law. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2816 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985).

State v. McInnes

Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 2026

“The doctrine of qualified immunity generally shields public officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … to qualified immunity.

Shultz v. Sundberg

577 F. Supp. 1491 · District Court, D. Alaska · Jan 13, 1984

Defendants Sundberg, Vaden, Mix, Sheffield, Gorsuch and Hickey’s Motion for Summary Judgment — Qualified Immunity. … Under the test for official immunity, as modified by Harlow , on a motion such as this for summary judgment, the court may determine, “not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at

Marley v. Crawford County, Arkansas

383 F. Supp. 2d 1129 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jul 12, 2005

Qualified immunity shields defendants “[f]rom liability for civil damages *1132 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 204-07, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (qualified immunity does not shield conduct which violates clearly established rights; inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is

Nebraska Beef, Ltd. v. Greening

398 F.3d 1080 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 28, 2005

, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was ‘clearly’ established.” 516 U.S. 299, 313 (1996) (internal citations and quotations omitted) (original emphasis). … We stated in Buchholz, citing Drake, that “[i]f defendants prevail on [establishing that Buchholz has no cause of action], ‘it follows a fortiori’ they are entitled to qualified immunity.” Id. at 865.

Zann v. Whidby

904 F. Supp. 2d 1229 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Oct 24, 2012

To avoid summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that “(1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation … Was the Right Clearly Established?