Case law

Denton v. Cole <b> <font color="RED"> Do Not File in this Case - Case Consolidated, file in Case No. 18-CV-03241-SRB . </b> </font>

District Court, W.D. Missouri · Nov 30, 2018

that right was clearly established at the time of the employee’s firing.” … Regarding step two of the qualified immunity analysis, “[f]or a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours ‘must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing

Willie Dean, Jr. v. Johnnie Jones

984 F.3d 295 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 4, 2021

And even if there had been an Eighth Amendment violation, according to the officers, they were entitled to qualified immunity because that violation was not “clearly established” in 2015. … were lawful in light of clearly established law.’”

RAYNER v. THE COUNTY OF CHESTER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 6, 2025

Sept. 1, 2020) (“Because a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process right against malicious prosecution was not clearly established in 2008—and is still not clearly established for that matter—the Court grants qualified … “If a court concludes that an officer's conduct did violate a clearly established constitutional right, then it must deny him the protection afforded by qualified immunity.” Curley, 298 F.3d at 277.

Kong v. Burnsville, City of

District Court, D. Minnesota · Dec 14, 2018

See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 237 (encouraging courts to decide qualified immunity defenses on the “clearly established “prong” when “it is plain that a constitutional right is not clearly established but far from obvious whether … judgment in a qualified immunity case.”

Hill v. Rowe

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 4, 2022

Serpas, 745 F.3d 767, 771 (Sth Cir. 2014) (“Once the defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, ‘the burden shifts to the plaintiff to rebut this defense by establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct … violated clearly established law.’”

Boreen v. Christensen

280 Mont. 378 · Montana Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1996

s qualified immunity claim. … Because we hold that Boreen’s property interest in her employment was not clearly established in April of 1990, we need not reach the second prong of the Harlow test for granting qualified immunity.

Baker v. Chaplin

517 N.W.2d 911 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Jun 30, 1994

Id. at 396 , 109 S.Ct. at 1872 . 5 Many courts have found the law prohibiting excessive force to be clearly established *915 for qualified immunity purposes. See, e.g., Street v. … as asserted by the defendant, the defendant's actions violated clearly established law and are therefore not within the scope of the qualified immunity.

Amore v. Novarro

624 F.3d 522 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 12, 2010

(3) was clearly 8 established at the time that he was arrested." … Kurtzman, 411 U.S. 192, 207-08 (1973) that petitioners are entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that it was not clearly established at the time of the search that their conduct was unconstitutional

Self, Carl v. Bates, Kelsey

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Mar 14, 2025

Even if prison officials violate the Constitution, they are entitled to qualified immunity absent proof of a violation of clearly established law. Tousis v. Billiot, 84 F.4th 692, 698 (7th Cir. 2023). … Thus, the court must deny summary judgment as to both, including on qualified immunity grounds. See Hardeman v.

Park County v. Cooney

845 P.2d 346 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1992

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639-40 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3038-39 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987), the Court took up the question of what constitutes a “clearly established legal rule” for purposes of qualified immunity: The operation of … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Robert Harper v. County of Delaware

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 12, 2019

And for qualified immunity purposes, 3 The individual defendants argued below that they were entitled to qualified immunity. … The Municipal Defendants Our conclusion that the right Harper claims was not clearly established does not resolve his claims against the municipal defendants, which cannot assert a qualified immunity defense to

Board of Regents of State v. Snyder

826 So. 2d 382 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 19, 2002

Qualified immunity protects government actors performing discretionary functions from liability and suit for civil damages *390 unless their conduct violates clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights. … Thus, qualified immunity in this case hinges upon whether Mr. Snyder's First Amendment right was clearly established.

Luchtel v. Hagemann

623 F.3d 975 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 7, 2010

Luchtel has not shown that the use of the officers’ bodies and handcuffs in the manner deployed violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 815 . … A reasonable police officer could properly believe that the use of this level of force would not violate a clearly established constitutional right. See Jackson, 268 F.3d at 653 n. 5; see also Malley v.

Niewolak v. CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, MI

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 19, 2022

With respect to qualified immunity, as to the “clearly established” prong, “[t]he law is clear in this Circuit regarding the prohibition against excessively forceful handcuffing.” Baynes v. … City of Troy, 247 F.3d 633, 641 (6th Cir. 2001) (the right to be free from “excessively forceful handcuffing” is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes).

Michael Cantrell v. City of Murphy

666 F.3d 911 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 4, 2012

“[A]n official does not lose qualified immunity merely because a certain right is clearly established in the abstract.” Kinney, 367 F.3d at 350. … Stated differently, Matthew’s asserted right was not clearly established on October 2, 2007. Because this putative right was not clearly established, the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Alecia Kirby v. L.F. Sherwin

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 24, 2023

Qualified immunity shields “government officials perform- ing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages inso- far as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … The Supreme Court has established a two-part test for evaluating a claim of qualified immunity.

Gonzales v. Jeri Bolton

District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 1, 2021

Serpas, 745 F.3d 767, 771 (Sth Cir. 2014) (“Once the defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, ‘the burden shifts to the plaintiff to rebut this defense by establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct … violated clearly established law.’”

Cockrell v. Board of Regents of New Mexico State University

127 N.M. 478 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · May 7, 1999

An official is entitled to qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment if the right allegedly violated was not so clearly established that an objectively reasonable, similarly situated official would have known that … date of termination did not clearly establish such a right in the school principal, and therefore, the officials were entitled to their individual defense of qualified immunity from suit.

Jones v. Yanta

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2009

Qualified Immunity "[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … However, "[ a] plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official's qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time

Clark v. Dunn

195 W. Va. 272 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1995

The one difference in immunity cases is that the official’s act must be shown to have violated clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. … [the West Virginia Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Refoim Act], is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which