Case law

Charles H. Wilson Geraldine E. Wilson Raquel Wilson, Next Friend/mother of Valencia Snowden, a Minor v. Harry Layne, Deputy, United States Marshal, Supervisor for the Washington Area, Operation Gunsmoke Joseph L. Perkins James A. Olivo, and Raymond M. Kight, Sheriff, Montgomery County, Maryland John Doe, Unknown Sheriff's Deputies John Doe, Unknown U.S. Marshals United States of America Eric E. Runion Mark A. Collins Brian E. Roynestad, Charles H. Wilson Geraldine E. Wilson Raquel Wilson, Next Friend/mother of Valencia Snowden, a Minor v. Mark A. Collins Eric E. Runion Brian E. Roynestad, and Raymond M. Kight, Sheriff, Montgomery County, Maryland John Doe, Unknown Sheriff's Deputies Harry Layne, Deputy, United States Marshal, Supervisor for the Washington Area, Operation Gunsmoke John Doe, Unknown U.S. Marshals United States of America Joseph L. Perkins James A. Olivo

141 F.3d 111 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 8, 1998

Furthermore, the district court refused to accept the officers' alternative argument that, at a minimum, they were entitled to qualified immunity because in April 1992, the law was not clearly established that permitting … Talladega City Bd. of Educ., 115 F.3d 821 , 826 n. 4 (11th Cir.1997) (en banc) (explaining that "the law can be 'clearly established' for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Timothy Daryl Atkins v. John Gibson Lanning, Kenneth D. Fouts and Randall Craig Ruark

556 F.2d 485 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 8, 1977

Hence the arresting officer is entitled to the qualified immunity defense of a good faith belief that his behavior was proper. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); Pierson v. … But the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor’s immunity would disserve the broader public interest.

Eric Andre v. Clayton County, Georgia

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 15, 2025

alleged a Fourth Amendment violation, the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because, in relevant part, the law was not clearly established. … A supervisor is entitled to qualified immunity if his alleged supervisory conduct did not violate clearly established law. See Ingram, 30 F.4th at 1256; see also Alcocer v.

Joseph W. Democko, Donald Jones and James Samis v. Iowa Department of Natural Resources

840 N.W.2d 281 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Dec 6, 2013

Iowa Code chapter 483A establishes a framework for the issuance of hunting and fishing licenses in Iowa. … In Hoeven, the Eighth Circuit implied certain property rights established under state law may be fundamental.

Klay v. Panetta

924 F. Supp. 2d 8 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 7, 2013

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 5 … at 34, and that is the teaching of Iqbal. 556 U.S. at 677 (stating that to determine “whether there is a violation of clearly established right to overcome qualified immunity, purpose rather than knowledge is required”)

Cunningham v. Gates

989 F. Supp. 1256 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 15, 1997

IMMUNITY STANDARD “Government officials who perform discretionary functions are protected from liability for civil damages as long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The threshold determination of whether the law is clearly established is a question of law for the court. [Citations.]

Middaugh v. City of Three Rivers

629 F. App'x 710 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 26, 2015

It is well established, however, that the doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Clearly Established Rights The second step of our qualified immunity analysis asks whether the rights at issue were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See id. at 306 .

Johnson v. Wright

423 F. Supp. 2d 1242 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 17, 2005

Case law need not arise out of factually identical situations to clearly establish law for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis. Id. at 1351 . … Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly held that this legal tenant is “clearly established” for purposes of addressing qualified immunity claims by public officials. See, e.g., Id.; Herren v.

Antonio Smith v. John Kind

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 30, 2025

But the Supreme Court has cautioned courts against reason- ing from broad principles when considering whether a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. See Kisela, 584 U.S. at 104. … Sheriff of Cook County, 993 F.3d 981, 988 (7th Cir. 2021) (“The prong-two clearly-established-law assess- ment does not require a case with identical factual circum- stances, lest qualified immunity become absolute immun-

Hartwell v. City of Montgomery, AL

487 F. Supp. 2d 1313 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 10, 2007

Under the qualified-immunity rule, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … to qualified immunity.

Webb v. Greene County Sheriff's Office

494 F. Supp. 2d 779 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 6, 2007

Even where an officer has violated a plaintiffs constitutional rights, that officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the right that he violated was not “clearly established” at the time of the violation. … As the right that Keller is accused of violating was clearly established at the time of the *795 arrest, he is not entitled to qualified immunity. 4.

Davis v. Education Service Center

62 S.W.3d 890 · Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) · Dec 5, 2001

. § 22.051(a); rather, Region VIII qualifies for sovereign immunity as an agency of the State. Sovereign immunity, unless waived, insulates the State of Texas, its agencies, and its officials from lawsuits for damages. … In Matthews , the court ruled the defendant did not have a qualified immunity for violating Title VII. Id. at 847 .

Washington v. St. Albans Police Department

30 F. Supp. 2d 455 · District Court, D. Vermont · Oct 27, 1998

Alternatively, Defendants also raise the defense of qualified immunity. … A defense of qualified immunity is established if “(a) the defendants’ action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such

Scott Hanson v. William Shubert

968 F.3d 1014 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 4, 2020

SHUBERT 5 in part found that Shubert and Gonzalez could not be accorded qualified immunity as a matter of law, as genuine factual disputes remained as to whether they violated Hanson’s clearly … established rights.

Linda Mays v. H.G. Rhodes

255 F.3d 644 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 29, 2001

Qualified immunity generally shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Second, the right allegedly violated must be clearly established. Id.

Baltas v. Erfe

District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 15, 2022

"The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … If no such right is clearly established, then the defendants are protected by qualified immunity.

Wright v. Montgomery County

215 F.3d 367 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 9, 2000

Wright argues that the Appellants’ qualified immunity claims are not reviewable on interlocutory appeal because the District Court’s December 18, 1998, Memorandum and Order “sets forth the clearly established right which … Holding as we do that Wright has alleged the violation of a clearly established right, we must also hold that the Appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings. IV.

LeRod Butler v. City of Detroit, Mich.

936 F.3d 410 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 22, 2019

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. … was clearly established.”

Darius Gittens v. Superintendent Eugene S. Lefevre, Review Officer Lt. Kavanaugh, Correction Officer J. Gillen, Sergeant Goodrich

891 F.2d 38 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 29, 1989

Qualified Immunity Gittens’ claim was properly dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. … Accordingly, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Parsons v. Ann Arbor, City of

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 2, 2021

Qualified immunity "'shield[s]' public officials from money-damages liability if 'their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … "To survive the motion to dismiss on qualified-immunity grounds, [P]laintiff must allege facts that plausibly mak[e] out a claim that the defendant's conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established