Case law

Creighton v. Anderson

922 F.2d 443 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 17, 1990

Once the plaintiff has demonstrated that the law governing the plaintiffs’ rights was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s acts, the defendant has the burden of proof with respect to all other elements of the … qualified immunity defense.

Mendoza v. Herrera

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 14, 2020

Qualified immunity “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … In response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to qualified immunity, plaintiff does not identify a case that clearly establishes that his constitutional rights were violated.

Sensabaugh v. Krznarich

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Sep 5, 2023

To defeat qualified immunity, plaintiff must show that he was deprived of a constitutional right that was “clearly established at the time and under the circumstances presented.” Bianchi v. … It would be error for me to find that the general “right to be free of excessive force” is clearly established law for the purposes of qualified immunity. Emmons, 139 S.

Lane v. Sarpy County

165 F.3d 623 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 13, 1999

For reversal, Lane argues that the district court erred in holding that qualified immunity protects defendants from § 1983 liability for errors made in the preparation and execution of an arrest warrant intended for another … Because plaintiff cannot establish a constitutional violation, defendants are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. 6 In sum, we conclude upon careful review that the district court's analysis of this

Martinez v. Carr

479 F.3d 1292 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 27, 2007

The district court further found this seizure to be unlawful and ruled that Officer Carr w as not entitled to qualified immunity from suit because his conduct violated a “clearly established” constitutional right under … In order for the law to be considered clearly established at the second step of the Saucier analysis, we have explained that “‘there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established

Christensen v. Park City Municipal Corp.

554 F.3d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 6, 2009

Christensen] was not ‘clearly established’ in January 2004 [the date of the incident],” id. at 8, thus entitling the individual defendants to qualified immunity. … Until very recently, in a case of qualified immunity, district and appellate courts were required to resolve the issue of law before proceeding to whether it was clearly established. Saucier v.

Vives v. City of New York

405 F.3d 115 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 21, 2004

On the basis of the foregoing, we hold that defendants did not have fair notice of section 240.30(l)’s purported unconstitutionality and that the District Court erred in denying Detectives Li and Lu qualified immunity on … CONCLUSION The portion of the District Court’s judgment denying defendants qualified immunity is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the District Court with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of defendants

Strickland v. City of Las Cruces

District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 27, 2025

(Doc. 63) at 11.1 Alternatively, Defendants argue they are “entitled to qualified immunity, pursuant to Wilson, 52 F.3d 1547, because the law was not clearly established at the time of the incident.” Id. … Even if the Court determined Defendant Officers’ PIT maneuver was objectively unreasonable, the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity because performing the PIT maneuver did not violate clearly established law.

Yu Kikumura v. C.A. Turner

28 F.3d 592 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 27, 1994

The district court granted summary judgment in Turner’s favor, finding that Turner was entitled to qualified immunity, and that the challenged actions did not violate Kikumura’s “clearly established constitutional rights. … As our discussion of Kikumura’s claim for declaratory and injunctive relief (pages 597-99, below) demonstrates, this is a close question, and the point of qualified immunity and its “clearly established” requirement is that

Washington v. St. Louis, Missouri, City of

District Court, E.D. Missouri · Mar 31, 2021

Defendants assert that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because “their conduct comported with and did not violate clearly established law.” Doc. [11-1] at 13. … immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of the incident that their conduct was a violation of Mr.

Quintana v. Santa Fe County Board of Comm.

973 F.3d 1022 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 28, 2020

Qualified Immunity Our qualified-immunity inquiry requires a plaintiff to allege that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the … When qualified immunity is asserted, the plaintiffs must show that the defendants violated a constitutional or statutory right that was clearly established. Estate of Booker v.

Novak v. City of Parma

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 24, 2021

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … Seitzinger, 363 F. 3d 645, 648 (7th Cir. 2004) (awarding officer qualified immunity and holding that the officer’s consultation with prosecutor “goes far” to establish qualified immunity); Dixon v.

Moore v. Vega

371 F.3d 110 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 10, 2004

entitlement to qualified immunity. … : qualified immunity protects that officer unless' his performance was in violation of clearly established law, or was plainly incompetent.

Clabough

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 18, 2026

entitled to qualified immunity.”). … Forsythe, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement

Richard Marx, Individually and Kristina Marx, a Minor v. Glenn H. Gumbinner, Bruce H. Colton and Pamela J. Roebuck

855 F.2d 783 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 20, 1988

Thus, a government official who is potentially entitled to absolute immunity may seek to establish his immunity in the following manner. … prosecutors engage are, at most, accorded only qualified immunity.

Hill v. City of New York

45 F.3d 653 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 17, 1995

IV Qualified Immunity and Failure to State a Claim Adago urges that even were he not to be entitled to absolute immunity for some of his conduct, qualified immunity shields him from liability for it. … Under qualified immunity, a government official may claim immunity from suit only when in light of clearly established law and the information the official possesses, it was objectively reasonable for him to think that his

Halley v. Huckaby

902 F.3d 1136 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 27, 2018

But the good-faith exception is subsumed by the clearly-established prong of qualified immunity, which we discuss below. See Groh v. … Clearly Established Law We now turn to the second part of our qualified immunity analysis.

Estate of Jeffrey Ford v. Ramirez-Palmer

301 F.3d 1043 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 23, 2002

Each moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity. … was clearly established.

Hyman v. Lewis

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 14, 2019

The complaint fails to state a claim under § 1983; further, because Plaintiff has not articulated a constitutional violation by the individual defendants, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (qualified immunity provides immunity from suit for government officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Torres v. Madrid

District Court, D. New Mexico · Jun 10, 2021

Casper, 507 F.3d 1260, 1265 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[I]t is well established that limited discovery may be necessary to resolve qualified immunity claims on summary judgment.”). … of the defendant’s qualified immunity assertion.”