Case law

Babb v. Lake City Community College

66 F.3d 270 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 5, 1995

is whether the facts show a violation of "clearly established" law. … "clearly established" law.

Guerra v. Sutton

783 F.2d 1371 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 28, 1986

IMMUNITY OF THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS A federal officer is entitled to qualified immunity for actions taken in the course of duty unless the officer’s conduct violated “clearly established” law. Harlow v. … We construe the district court’s dismissal of the FTCA claim as based on the same qualified immunity grounds.

Morin v. Caire

77 F.3d 116 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 7, 1996

The Plaintiffs' Constitutional Claims: Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 unless it is shown by specific allegations that the officials violated clearly established law.10 … To determine if qualified immunity applies, this court follows a two-step process.

Ralph Rogers v. Michael Fair

902 F.2d 140 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 30, 1990

We have jurisdiction to review a district court’s denial of qualified immunity on grounds that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the factual predicate of a qualified immunity claim. … concerning qualified immunity.

Krogh v. Sweeney

195 F. Supp. 3d 1049 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jul 14, 2016

Sweeney argues that he is immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “[QJualified immunity protects [law enforcement] officers from personal liability under § 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Ross v. Lichtenfeld

755 F. Supp. 2d 467 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 6, 2010

A public official defendant performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity when “[his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Thus, Lichtenfeld would be entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) the constitutional prohibition he violated was not clearly established, or (2) a reasonable person in Lichtenfeld’s position would not have believed

Mayberry v. Spicer

808 F. Supp. 563 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 24, 1992

A Defendant has “qualified immunity unless Plaintiff’s rights were so clearly established when the acts were committed that any officer in the Defendant’s position, measured objectively, would have clearly understood that … To prevail over a claim *567 of qualified immunity, Plaintiff must set forth a particular and clearly established violation. Garvie v. Jackson, 845 F.2d 647, 650 (6th Cir.1988).

Hegwood v. City of Eau Claire

668 F. Supp. 2d 1156 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Nov 10, 2009

“cannot clearly establish a constitutional violation.”). … Because plaintiffs have failed to show that it was “clearly established” that applying Wisconsin’s disorderly house statute would *1168 be unconstitutional, I conclude that the individual defendants have qualified immunity

Karen Deloach Collins, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Benny Deloach v. Matthew Schantz

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Sep 26, 2023

See id. at 123 (1) (referring to “[t]he doctrine of official immunity, also known as qualified immunity”; Gilbert v. … established law” to that effect.

Clue v. Johnson

179 F.3d 57 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 10, 1999

"The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability if the official's conduct did not violate constitutional rights that were clearly established at the pertinent time or if it was objectively … Instead, they contend that their activities raise a public concern under clearly established law and that Johnson is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. See infra.

DEFOE EX REL. DEFOE v. Spiva

566 F. Supp. 2d 748 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jul 10, 2008

Qualified immunity does not shield public officials from liability for violating constitutional rights which are clearly established. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). … If the court determines that the right is clearly established, qualified immunity does not shield the public officials from liability. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Baylor College of Medicine v. Tate

77 S.W.3d 467 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · May 23, 2002

on the issue of qualified immunity”); Austin Indep. … Clearly, this section applies to, among other things, assertions of immunity from suit. It does not apply to assertions of immunity from liability. Hence, it is necessary to determine the nature of Baylor’s claim.

Carter v. Rhode Island

68 F.3d 9 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 18, 1995

had been "clearly established" long before 1990. … immunity from suit "if the right asserted by the plaintiff was `clearly established' at the time of its alleged violation . . .

Scotto v. Almenas

143 F.3d 105 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 5, 1998

Most executive officials receive qualified immunity, whereby "government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability ... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Qualified Immunity 28 The district court did not consider, and the parties have not briefed, whether or not Almenas, as alleged by Scotto, violated clearly established constitutional norms of which an objectively reasonable

Ortiz v. Alvarez

341 F. Supp. 3d 1087 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 21, 2018

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Jeffers v. … In evaluating a qualified immunity defense, the court first considers: (1) whether the defendant's conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) whether the right at issue was "clearly established."

Williams ex rel. Williams v. Papi

30 F. Supp. 3d 306 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defendant next argues that “an additional and fully sufficient basis exists to dismiss Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim, namely qualified immunity.” (Doc. 10 at 12.) … It has likewise held that when a “complaint failed to disclose whether the defendants’ actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, dismissal on qualified immunity grounds was premature.”

Mitchell v. Coffey County Hospital

903 F. Supp. 1415 · District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 25, 1995

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The individual defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs due process claim because the law was not clearly established at the time of plaintiffs termination. … This exception to the rule that the qualified immunity defense fails where the defendant violated a clearly established right applies only rarely. Id.

State Board of Chiropractic Examiners v. Stjernholm

935 P.2d 959 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Apr 7, 1997

When only qualified immunity applies and the suit is for damages, a section 1983 claim must allege violation of a clearly established constitutional right and material facts of misconduct, under circumstances which reveal … To withstand a motion for summary judgment in the qualified immunity context, violation of a clearly established constitutional right 15 and material facts of misconduct must be pleaded.

Dennis Wiertella v. Lake Cnty., Ohio

141 F.4th 775 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 24, 2025

Qualified immunity To overcome Snow’s and Watson’s qualified-immunity defense, the Estate must establish (1) that Snow and Watson violated Wiertella’s constitutional rights, and (2) that the governing caselaw “clearly … Sheehan, 575 U.S. 600, 613 (2015) (“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”).

Zavatsky v. Anderson

130 F. Supp. 2d 349 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 12, 2001

If such a deprivation has occurred, a defendant may establish a qualified immunity defense if “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to … established constitutional right for the purpose of the court’s qualified immunity analysis.