Case law

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.]

Anthony v. Burkhart

28 F. Supp. 2d 1239 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 30, 1998

For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government … Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the federal "rights” allegedly violated were “clearly established.” Barts v.

Moss v. United States Secret Service

750 F. Supp. 2d 1197 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 29, 2010

For instance, an allegation that Defendant A violated a plaintiffs clearly established rights does nothing to overcome Defendant B’s assertion of qualified immunity, absent some allegation that Defendant B was responsible … Federal Defendants argue that they have qualified immunity because Plaintiffs’ *1227 First Amendment rights were not clearly established at the time and the Federal Defendants’ conduct on that day was reasonable. (Fed.

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.

Gilchinsky v. NATIONAL WESTMINISTER BANK

159 N.J. 463 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 14, 1999

N.J.S.A. 25:2-1 provides a “qualified immunity” for funds deposited in a New Jersey IRA. The purpose behind such expansive protection is to prevent creditors from attaching money earmarked for retirement. … In exempting fraudulent conveyances from the otherwise broad-based immunity, the Legislature clearly intended to prevent debtors from using New. Jersey law to shield their assets from creditors.

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.

Victor Santiago v. Daniel Blair

707 F.3d 984 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 27, 2013

was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct. … “Under the rule established in Pearson, we have the discretion to decide ‘which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand.’

Garretson v. City of Madison Heights

407 F.3d 789 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 27, 2005

entitled to qualified immunity. … legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Fernando Saint-Jean v. Palisades Interstate Park

49 F.4th 830 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 23, 2022

demonstrated a violation of a constitutional right – an arrest and prosecution without probable cause – that applied with obvious clarity to Saint-Jean’s particular circumstances, such that the constitutional violation was clearly-established … of qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

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

Hicks v. Feeney

850 F.2d 152 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 22, 1988

Finally, the district court found that because Hicks’s rights were not “clearly established” at the time of the violation, Feeney was entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 1515. … If it were clearly established that this confinement violated Hicks’s constitutional rights, then Feeney does not have qualified immunity. Id.

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.

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.

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

Houghton v. Culver

452 F. Supp. 2d 212 · District Court, W.D. New York · Sep 21, 2006

Qualified immunity shields public officials “from civil damages liability insofar as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,’ Harlow … We further conclude that Lynch has not established that he is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity on any of Curry’s claims”); Thomas v.

Tuttle v. Gallegos

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 29, 2026

A The qualified-immunity doctrine shields public officials from suit for damages under § 1983 unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right. Mace v. … of clearly established law.”

Avone Kukla v. Andrew D. Hulm Scott Brown

310 F.3d 1046 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 15, 2002

To avoid summary judgment based on qualified immunity, Kukla had to assert a violation of a constitutional right, show the alleged right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, and raise a genuine issue … In other words, qualified immunity shields Brown and Hulm from this lawsuit if they could *1049 have reasonably believed their conduct was lawful in light of clearly established law and the information they possessed.

Gaston v. Coughlin

861 F. Supp. 199 · District Court, W.D. New York · Aug 12, 1994

Therefore, Defendants Le-Baron and Grant, both prison hearing officers, are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages if their conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right … Accordingly, the hearing officer was entitled to qualified immunity.