Case 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.

Renn Ex Rel. Renn v. Garrison

100 F.3d 344 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 12, 1996

Qualified immunity shields public officials from personal liability for discretionary actions provided their conduct does not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a rea- sonable person … The question of whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity may be answered as a matter of law by determining "whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant[s] were clearly established at the time

Harris v. Adams

410 F. Supp. 2d 707 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 20, 2005

First, in determining whéther a constitutional right is clearly established, the court must first look to decisions of the U.S. … A public official is entitled to qualified immunity and thus protected from liability under § 1983 for his actions if his conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable

ESTATE OF SCOTT BY SCOTT v. DeLeon

603 F. Supp. 1328 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 13, 1985

I now consider the supervisory defendants' argument that they are protected against this claim by their qualified immunity, see Harlow v. … Accordingly, defendants' motion for summary judgment based on their qualified immunity is DENIED.

Carey v. Maloney

480 F. Supp. 2d 548 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 30, 2007

Qualified immunity is warranted if either (1) the official’s actions did not violate clearly established law, or (2) even if the actions violated a clearly established law, the official was objectively reasonable in believing … Qualified Immunity as to Fox and Maloney As described above, “[t]he right of an individual not to be subjected to excessive force has long been clearly established.” Calamia v.

Betty Grooms v. Judge Steven Privette

127 F.4th 730 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 4, 2025

Qualified immunity attaches if the defendants’ conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Billingsley v. St. … We start our consideration of the case with Grooms’s First Amendment claim, and, because we are satisfied that any law Bell or Privette violated was not clearly established, we hold that they enjoy qualified immunity with

Roy v. Inhabitants of the City of Lewiston

42 F.3d 691 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 21, 1994

Creighton addressed to qualified immunity for a Fourth Amendment violation. … On the contrary, this court has held that it would be unsuitable to instruct a jury that excessive force must be "clearly" established to justify liability; we reasoned that the term could confuse the jury

Tuesday Stepp v. Arthur L. Proctor Tom Creider Louis Stelting

13 F.3d 407 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 2, 1993

We have previously set out the procedure for analyzing a qualified immunity claim: 6 First, the defendant must raise the defense of qualified immunity. … official violated the clearly established law.

Jolly v. Klein

923 F. Supp. 931 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 29, 1996

Qualified Immunity Dr. Klein asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity in this case. … When determining whether qualified immunity is available, the actions of a reasonably competent official are assessed in the light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken.

Howell v. Smith

853 F.3d 892 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 10, 2017

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff demonstrates that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and that the right was “clearly established” at the … established law.”

Zavaro v. Coughlin

775 F. Supp. 84 · District Court, W.D. New York · Sep 20, 1991

That issue presents a question which turns on Homrighouse’s right to a qualified immunity defense. … A state official may establish a right to qualified immunity from suit and from liability by showing (i) that it was not clear at the time of the official acts that the interest asserted by the plaintiff was protected by

Wilber v. Curtis

872 F.3d 15 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 20, 2017

Gikas, 861 F.3d 296, 302 (1st Cir. 2017), but also "whether the right was 'clearly established' at the time of" the challenged governmental conduct, id. at 303. … And, a government official, in consequence of qualified immunity, may not be held liable under § 1983 unless the official is found to have violated a federal law right that is clearly established. Id.

Spencer v. Roche

755 F. Supp. 2d 250 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 8, 2010

Qualified Immunity Defendant VHS contends that its nurse employees are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions, and that it cannot be liable under a theory of vicarious or supervisory liability for actions that are … Defendants Roche and Morris do not assert qualified immunity as a defense on summary judgment. 13 .

Scott v. Churchill

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 23, 2004

An official defendant in a § 1983 suit is entitled to qualified immunity if her conduct “does not violate clearly established Scott v. … Cale, decided in 1988, clearly entitled to qualified immunity. establishes that the mere potential threat of disciplinary sanctions is sufficiently adverse action to support a claim of E.

United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. Township of Warrington

316 F.3d 392 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 14, 2003

Qualified immunity applies so long as the officials’ “conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … clearly established at the time of the violation.

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.

Kirkland Ex Rel. Jones v. Greene County Board of Education

347 F.3d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 7, 2003

Notwithstanding that his actual conduct may have violated the Constitution, Morrow agues that at the time of the incident the right to be free from corporal punishment was not clearly established. … Thus, the qualified immunity question turns on whether Morrow’s actions as described by Kirkland violated these principles.

McKenna v. City of Royal Oak

469 F.3d 559 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 28, 2006

While the officers assert that they “raise only the legal issue of whether the facts set forth by [McKenna] constitute a violation of clearly established law,” all three arguments advanced by the officers on the issue of … qualified immunity appeal.

Davenport v. Tunnell

698 F. Supp. 1542 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Oct 28, 1988

In Coen , our circuit stated: Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects government officials from persona] liability unless their actions violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would … Moreover, if the law in this area is not yet “clearly established”, defendants still prevail because plaintiffs failed to clear the first hurdle in the qualified immunity analysis.

Dearden v. City of Detroit

403 Mich. 257 · Michigan Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1978

The Court reached this conclusion after noting the statutory power of the commission to regulate all public utilities was qualified by the phrase, "except as otherwise restricted by law”. … .; MSA 28.2271, et seq., the Legislature intended to grant the Department of Corrections immunity from local zoning ordinances when establishing state penal institutions.