Case law

Priest v. Grazier

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 25, 2021

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability in their individual capacity to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” … unlawfulness of the conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

Joshua, Jimmie v. Wachholz, Isaac

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Apr 21, 2023

All defendants now seek summary judgment on the merits of these claims, or alternatively, on their entitlement to qualified immunity. (Dkt. #25.) … Biggs, 43 F.4th 732, 736 (7th Cir. 2022) (dismissing interlocutory appeal of denial of qualified immunity because factual disputes precluded district court from determining whether defendant violated clearly established

Lambert v. RIVERBOAT GAMING ENFORC. DIV.

706 So. 2d 172 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 1997

In support of their application, defendants contend that the trial court erred: (1) in ruling that defendants had established the qualified immunity defense, yet failing to grant their exception of no cause of action and … Accordingly, in Kyle , this court examined the pleadings to determine whether the plaintiff had set forth material facts therein which, if taken as true, showed that defendants had violated a clearly established right of

Rubeor v. Town of Wright

191 F. Supp. 3d 198 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 8, 2016

Was the Right Clearly Established The second step in qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the constitutional or statutory right was clearly established at the time that it was violated. … Therefore, the constitutional right in question was not clearly established, and individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Wyoming State Hospital and State of Wyoming v. Mary Romine and Donald Romine, as Guardians and Conservators for and On Behalf of Justina Case, Their Ward

2021 WY 47 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Mar 25, 2021

law was clearly established and whether the defendant’s conduct was proscribed by such clearly established law without reviewing the merits of the case. … The nub of qualified immunity is the need to induce officials to show reasonable initiative when the relevant law is not “clearly established,” Harlow v.

Lucas v. Otsego County Sheriff Richard J. Devlin Jr.

139 A.D.3d 1196 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 12, 2016

Supreme Court determined that, among other things, defendants were shielded from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity and granted their motion. Plaintiff now appeals. We affirm. … Defendants nevertheless have qualified immunity for their conduct if they did "not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known" (Mullenix v Luna, US

Wright v. City Of Philadelphia

409 F.3d 595 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 6, 2005

facts showed a violation of `clearly established' law." … violated was clearly established.

Morelli v. Webster

552 F.3d 12 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 7, 2009

Qualified Immunity. This case differs from a garden-variety summary judgment case because it involves the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Given this well-settled jurisprudence, there is no legitimate doubt that the right asserted here was clearly established.

Ortega v. Reyna

114 Nev. 55 · Nevada Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1998

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … The pertinent inquiry in determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity for a Fourth Amendment violation is whether a reasonable officer could have believed his conduct lawful under the clearly established

Jennifer L.M. LeMay v. Michael B. Mays

18 F.4th 283 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 15, 2021

Clearly Established We then turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis⸺whether the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. See Dillard, 961 F.3d at 1052. … and entitling him to qualified immunity.

Mary E. Walters v. Paul Freeman

572 F. App'x 723 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 16, 2014

Towards that end, qualified immunity protects government officials engaged in discretionary functions and sued in their individual capacities unless they “violate[] clearly established federal statutory or constitutional … Because the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Walters, demonstrate that Freeman violated her clearly established constitutional rights, the district court properly denied qualified immunity to Freeman.

Barnes v. Fedele

337 F. Supp. 3d 227 · District Court, W.D. New York · Oct 2, 2018

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for civil damages "if his conduct did not violate plaintiff's *231 clearly established rights or if it would have been objectively reasonable for … The qualified immunity defense in this case largely turns on two considerations: whether the statutory or constitutional right in question was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, and, if so, whether

Benner v. Saint Paul Public Schools, I.S.D. 625

District Court, D. Minnesota · May 6, 2019

Gruenewald’s Qualified Immunity Defense With respect to Principal Gruenewald – the “individual defendant” – Defendants argue that, because there is no “clearly established legal right to be free … speech in these circumstances was clearly established”).

Chauncey Ziglar v. Diann Skiles and West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia · Dec 6, 2024

Therefore, to defeat a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that the public official’s duties violated clearly established, and reasonably known legal authority prescribing a duty to act or that the public official … Ziglar has failed to make the required showing of a “clearly established, and reasonably known legal authority prescribing a duty to act” or that the actions or inactions of Ms.

Richard Wesley v. Alison Campbell

864 F.3d 433 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 20, 2017

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … To determine whether Rigney is entitled to qualified immunity, we must determine whether the facts within the trial record make out a violation of a constitutional right, and whether that right was clearly established “such

Rowan County v. Sloas

201 S.W.3d 469 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Sep 26, 2006

official immunity; and, for the Jailer and Henderson in their individual capacities, on grounds of qualified official immunity. … THE YANERO TEST FOR QUALIFIED OFFICIAL IMMUNITY Under Yanero , public officers and employees are entitled to “qualified official immunity” for negligent conduct when the negligent act or omissions were (1) discretionary acts

Hale v. Walterbach

District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 24, 2024

To defeat qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct … “If the defendant’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional right” courts examine “whether qualified immunity is still appropriate because the defendant’s actions were objectively reasonable in light

Irwin v. Santiago

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 8, 2021

Nonetheless, because Irwin has not demonstrated that they violated clearly established law, the Court grants summary judgment to the Defendant–Officers based on qualified immunity.4 1. … The Defendant–Officers did not violate clearly established law.

Long v. Boucher

District Court, D. Utah · Nov 24, 2020

To overcome this defense, a plaintiff must establish that the officer asserting qualified immunity “violated a federal statutory or constitutional right” and that “the unlawfulness of [her] conduct was clearly established … The court must accordingly turn to whether Detective Boucher is entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that her actions were objectively reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the

Dicks Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Jenne

740 So. 2d 576 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 21, 1999

Initially, the trial court denied the motion, finding that Deputy Biernacki had "failed to establish his entitlement to qualified immunity as a matter of law, particularly in light of the court's prior ruling that the arrest … decision on the qualified immunity issue; and the record before this court does not support a finding that the prior rulings were clearly erroneous.