Case law

Tashonda Troupe v. St. Louis County, Missouri

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 11, 2025

“A public official is entitled to qualified immunity unless: (1) their conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established.” Davis v. Buchanan Cnty., 11 F.4th 604, 623 (8th Cir. 2021). … “Qualified immunity is ‘appropriate where no reasonable fact finder could conclude that the facts when viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff show that the officers’ conduct violated a clearly established constitutional

Fogarty v. Gallegos

523 F.3d 1147 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 18, 2008

On appeal, defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on both counts because Fogarty’s evidence falls short of establishing a deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right. … they violated was clearly established.

Anthony J. Prisco, Jr. v. Dennis P. Talty, Individually T/a Zeitz and Talty Glenn A. Zeitz, Esq., Individually T/a Zeitz and Talty

993 F.2d 21 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 30, 1993

Based on well-established standards of statutory construction, we hold that, with one clearly stated exception, the 1984 amendments do not apply to a cause of action which had accrued prior to the effective date of their … There we concluded that the government’s conduct violated Prisco's clearly established constitutional due process rights.

Chiles v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections

467 F. App'x 801 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 15, 2012

Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 377 (2007) (holding that public officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff demonstrates that there is “a violation of a constitutional right” and that right is “clearly established … Jones was entitled to qualified immunity because neither Ms.

Boyd v. City of Warren

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 30, 2020

App’x 384, 388 (6th Cir. 2008) (“Because our cases clearly established Lawler’s right to be free from gratuitous force during booking, the district court properly denied Toro qualified immunity.” … In contrast to qualified immunity, this inquiry is subjective. See id. But McCabe and Masserang not only have the initial burden on summary judgment, they also have the burden of establishing governmental immunity.

Schmidt v. Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Co.

426 N.W.2d 870 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Aug 5, 1988

The insurance policy between Midwest and Schmidt may not technically qualify as a contract of adhesion. Nevertheless, it possesses some earmarks of an adhesive contract. … The public policy of this state favoring the employment of arbitration is clearly and firmly established in our law. By our decisions it antedated the UAA. By enactment of the UAA it has been legislatively endorsed.

Jamal Murray v. State of Ohio Dep't of Corrections

29 F.4th 779 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 30, 2022

motion is based on a claim of qualified immunity.” … Heyd is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law We now consider the merits of the qualified-immunity defense.

Dayton v. City of Marco Island

District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 5, 2021

Qualified immunity protects government officials (sued individually) if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Because Plaintiffs cannot show a clearly established right, qualified immunity protects Brechnitz. See Fuqua v.

Farag v. United States

587 F. Supp. 2d 436 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 24, 2008

the defense of qualified immunity, which “shields government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “As a general rule, police officers are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did

Blackwell v. Barton

34 F.3d 298 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 20, 1994

The first inquiry in the examination of a defendant's claim of qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Siegert v. … Qualified Immunity Barton is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of his conduct. Pfannstiel, 918 F.2d at 1183.

Bunting v. Mellen

541 U.S. 1019 · Supreme Court of the United States · Apr 26, 2004

immunity. … The Court of Appeals concluded that Bunting is entitled to qualified immunity, id., at 376, and respondents have not challenged that ruling.

McCollum v. Drewitz

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Oct 3, 2022

qualified immunity from suits for damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … immunity” because the law at the time did not clearly establish that his doing so violated McCollum’s rights.

City of Saint Albans v. Botkins

228 W. Va. 393 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 23, 2011

As to the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry— whether the constitutional standards were clearly established at the time in question— the Ninth Circuit concluded it should be answered by applying the same test the … Is there qualified immunity?

Lewis v. City of Burnsville

District Court, D. Minnesota · Oct 31, 2019

Therefore, at minimum, Frascone has qualified immunity. See Brown v. … City of Golden Valley, 574 F.3d 491, 496 (8th Cir. 2009) (explaining that to defeat qualified immunity, a plaintiff most show both the existence of a right and that the right was clearly established at the time of the

Lipkin

District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 31, 2026

“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.” City of Escondido v. … Moreover, in the First Amendment context, the Second Circuit has recognized that qualified immunity is not available where (1) “specific intent of a defendant is an element of plaintiff’s claim under clearly established

White v. City Of Markham

310 F.3d 989 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 13, 2002

Qualified Immunity 7 The plaintiffs contend that the district court erred in dismissing the claims against Officer Muldrow and Chief Lymore based on qualified immunity. … The plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing the existence of a clearly established constitutional right. See Rakovich v.

Bisetti v. City Of Austin

District Court, W.D. Texas · Sep 30, 2022

The qualified-immunity framework The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from suit and liability for damages under § 1983 unless their conduct violates a clearly established … Thus, in determining qualified immunity, courts engage in a two-step analysis: (1) was a statutory or constitutional right violated on the facts alleged; and (2) did the officer’s actions violate clearly established

Vinzant v. King

464 U.S. 965 · Supreme Court of the United States · Nov 7, 1983

Thunderhawk v. Morton, County of, North Dakota

District Court, D. North Dakota · Nov 6, 2023

established prong of qualified immunity under the circumstances of this case. … Plaintiffs have failed to provide a factually similar case sufficient to support the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Robinson v. Beaumont

291 Ark. 477 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 16, 1987

This immunity is guaranteed so long as the actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the complaint fails to state a claim of violation of clearly established law the defense of qualified immunity is appropriate and the suit should not be allowed to proceed.