Case law

In re the Marriage of Nelson

Court of Appeals of Iowa · Oct 20, 2021

That year, Mick filed a pro se request to end his obligation because the children no longer qualified for support. … App. 2005) (“Clearly when a child support award is based on two qualifying children and one no longer qualifies, there has been a substantial change in circumstances.”); see also Iowa Code § 598.21C(1).

Lazarus

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 4, 2026

Qualified Immunity. … See id. at 368 (“[A]s Defendants have not presented any penological interest . . . and [the plaintiff’s] right was clearly established, we hold that Defendants have not shown that they are entitled to qualified immunity

Daniels v. D'AURIZO

564 F. Supp. 2d 194 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jul 9, 2008

Nevertheless, I find that even if probable cause was lacking or questionable, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields public officials from an action for civil damages, to the extent that their challenged acts do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Charles Hamner v. Danny Burls

937 F.3d 1171 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 11, 2019

was “clearly established.” … In evaluating an officer’s claim to qualified immunity, “[t]he dispositive question is whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.” Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S.

Almighty Supreme Born Allah v. Milling

876 F.3d 48 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 22, 2017

“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 person … Allah argues, and the district court concluded below, that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because Wolfish and its progeny clearly established the “right to be free from punishment before guilt” under substantive

Ross v. Columbia Newspapers, Inc.

266 S.C. 75 · Supreme Court of South Carolina · Jan 22, 1976

Since we agree with the trial judge’s determination that the articles were clearly not false or defamatory, we need not reach the question of qualified privilege. … And, we have held that a sufficient defense is made out where the evidence establishes that the statement was substantially true. Dauterman v. State-Record Co., 249 S. C. 512, 154 S. E. (2d) 919 (1967).

Evans v. Hightower

117 F.3d 1318 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 25, 1997

that of negligence and Hightower was entitled to qualified immunity. … clearly established law based upon objective standards. Id.

Morgan-Tyra v. City of St. Louis

District Court, E.D. Missouri · Sep 22, 2022

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless the evidence establishes (1) a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the violation such that a reasonable … State Univ., 495 F.3d 591, 594 (8th Cir. 2007) (“Although the defendant bears the burden of proof for [qualified immunity], the plaintiff must demonstrate that the law was clearly established.”); Johnson-El v.

Meekison v. Voinovich

17 F. Supp. 2d 725 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 21, 1998

Meekison’s Claim Under the ADA To establish a prima facie case under the ADA, Meekison must show: (1) she was disabled within the meaning of the statute at the time of her employment; (2) she was qualified to perform the … Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie ease under the ADEA, Meekison must show the following: a) membership in the protected class (between the ages of 40 and 70); b) that she applied and was qualified for a promotion

Thomas Mahoney v. Russell Kesery

976 F.2d 1054 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 30, 1992

But if a reasonable officer would not have believed the person had committed a crime, then the officer, whatever he did or did not believe, is acting contrary to clearly established law and therefore has no immunity. … What is true is that often the question of immunity is one of law — specifically, it is the question: what was the clearly established rule of law when the officers committed the acts for which they are being sued?

Lansdell v. Miller

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Feb 3, 2020

clearly established law.” … Qualified immunity calls for a bifurcated test in which the court must first determine (1) “whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established

Holland v. City of New York

197 F. Supp. 3d 529 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 24, 2016

Although the Court is permitted to determine whether a constitutional right exists before examining whether it was clearly established as part of the qualified immunity analysis, it declines to do so here. … Wright, 597 F.3d 532, 536 (2d Cir.2010) (finding the defendant prison employees entitled to qualified immunity with respect to inmate's First Amendment and RLUIPA claims because it had not been clearly established by the

Leath v. Webb

323 F. Supp. 3d 882 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jun 29, 2018

The officers and nurses did not have "fair warning" that their actions would violate a clearly established constitutional right, and they are entitled to qualified immunity. See Baynes v. … Because officers have "fair warning" that using force against a subdued suspect violates clearly established constitutional law, qualified immunity cannot bar Leath's claim against Webb.

Kerns v. Bader

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 20, 2011

And it proceeds to deny qualified immunity to all three defendants without pausing to address the clearly established law question. To be sure, the dissent appears very concerned by the fact that Mr. … B I disagree with the majority’s assertion that the district judge did not address the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis (the clearly established right prong).

Amy Young v. Gary S. Borders

850 F.3d 1274 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 16, 2017

Snider v. Jefferson State Community College

344 F.3d 1325 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 15, 2003

Defendants qualified immunity. … The defense of qualified immunity may be raised and addressed on a motion to dismiss and will be granted if the “complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Chesser v.

Miller v. Doe

214 Conn. App. 35 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jul 26, 2022

‘‘If an official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right . . . then he is protected by qualified immunity.’’ Walker v. Schult, supra, 126. … Our conclusion that federal law does not clearly establish the right at issue in the present case, however, does not end our qualified immunity analysis.

Perkins

District Court, N.D. Alabama · Mar 31, 2026

The Supreme Court has declared that the test of “clearly established” law cannot apply at a high level of generality; instead, to deny qualified immunity, “the right the official is alleged to have violated … Dep’t of Corrections, 71 F.4th 1324, 1333 (11th Cir. 2023) (“For purposes of qualified immunity, decisions of the Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, or the appropriate state supreme court can announce clearly established

Stepp v. Lockhart

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 3, 2026

On prong two of qualified immunity—clearly established law—the School District Defendants argue that the district court erred in relying on Goss. … Clearly established law To overcome qualified immunity for Principal Anderson and Mr. Blair, the Stepps still must show they violated clearly established First Amendment retaliation law.

Howard v. Fisk

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 18, 2020

Thus, the Court must conclude that Fisk is entitled to qualified immunity and dismiss all individual capacity claims against her. See Estate of Walker v. … Wallace, 881 F.3d 1056, 1060 (8th Cir. 2018) (“An individual is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”)