Case law

Hazley v. Roy

378 F. Supp. 3d 751 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 26, 2019

"Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a court must dismiss a complaint against a government official in his [or her] individual capacity that fails to state a claim for violation of 'clearly established statutory or … C Once the right has been defined at the appropriate level of specificity, the next inquiry is whether that right was clearly established. Defendants challenge this component of qualified immunity, as well.

Peoples v. Leon

63 F.4th 132 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 20, 2023

Peoples also argues that Alexander 8 and Leon are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated his clearly established rights. … In evaluating a claim of qualified immunity, we must determine whether any constitutional right that the defendant violated “was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Wilson v.

George Cooper, Sr. v. James Sheehan

735 F.3d 153 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 7, 2013

Forsyth, seek to apply clearly established law to a given set of facts, we are properly vested with jurisdiction. See Johnson, 515 U.S. at 313. … As we have explained, “qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could

Johnnie Williams v. Lance Corporal Kyle Strickland

917 F.3d 763 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 5, 2019

After discovery, Strickland and Heroux each moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for violations of constitutional rights that were not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Iko, 535 F.3d at 233.

Vu, Kojoua v. Lozano, Kevin

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Nov 27, 2023

A government defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows not only that the defendant violated his rights, but also that his rights were “clearly established” at the relevant time. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability provided that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Bartlett v. Cinemark USA, Inc.

908 S.W.2d 229 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Aug 11, 1995

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields an official performing discretionary functions from liability for damages under section 1983 so long as the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … Sullivan, 4 F.3d 2, 12 (1st Cir.1993) (recognizing that Supreme Court has not clearly explained role of “discretionary functions” in qualified immunity analysis).

Randy McDaniel v. Markeith Neal

44 F.4th 1085 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 15, 2022

Even if his use of force was excessive, Neal is entitled to qualified immunity unless the excessiveness of the force was clearly established on the date of the incident, August 13, 2017. … The district court denied the officer’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, and the en banc court reversed, holding that the officer did not violate a clearly established right on May 29, 2014.

Shaw v. Williams

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 7, 2018

When a defendant invokes qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show two things: (1) that the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at … Ct. at 552 (a plaintiff cannot defeat qualified immunity by defining clearly established law “at a high level of generality”).

Vollette v. Watson

937 F. Supp. 2d 706 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 1, 2013

However, the same qualified immunity test that requires this Court to ask “whether a given right was clearly established requires [the Court] to define that right ‘at a high level of particularity.’ ” Id. … immunity because the controlling law was not “clearly established.”

T.A. VS. ERICK MELGAR (L-0466-12, HUNTERDON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 19, 2018

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (stating the doctrine of qualified immunity, protects government officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Thus, "a defendant cannot have qualified immunity if she was deliberately indifferent; a reasonable [prison official] could not believe that her actions comported with clearly established law

McCoy v. City of Vallejo

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 29, 2021

See Mot. at 17–18. 1 Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability 2 for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate 3 clearly established statutory or constitutional … actions, 18 as clearly established law).

Richmond Lapolla v. County of Union

449 N.J. Super. 288 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 28, 2017

The qualified immunity doctrine is an affirmative defense that "shields government officials from a suit for civil damages when 'their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … And, as we observed, "[q]ualified immunity is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right." Id. at 28 (alteration in original).

District of Columbia v. Evans

644 A.2d 1008 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 21, 1994

1988 liability, an officer’s acts must clearly violate a clearly established right. … Deliberately shooting someone without just cause clearly violates the Fourth Amendment, and thus would preclude qualified immunity from § 1983 liability.

Patrick Dockery v. Sherrie Blackburn

911 F.3d 458 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 19, 2018

Qualified Immunity A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless he violated a clearly established constitutional right. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011). … Qualified-immunity analysis usually entails a two-step inquiry: we ask (1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff establish a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) if so, whether that right was clearly

Seekamp v. Michaud

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 27, 1997

immunity. … immunity claims.

Haynes v. City of Beaumont

35 S.W.3d 166 · Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) · Dec 8, 2000

Government officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity from liability for actions that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … In practice, whether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action assessed in light of clearly established legal rules at the time the

McCowan v. Morales

945 F.3d 1276 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 27, 2019

A court can consider the two qualified-immunity inquiries—whether the plaintiff has established a statutory or constitutional violation and whether that violation was clearly established—in any order. See Pearson v. … Because this claim adequately alleges a clearly established Fourteenth Amendment violation, the district court correctly denied Moralez qualified immunity from it. 1.

Jacob Pfaller v. Mark Amonette

55 F.4th 436 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 15, 2022

immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established. … was clearly established.

Churchill v. University of Colorado at Boulder

285 P.3d 986 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Sep 10, 2012

Third, we hold that Churchill's bad faith investigation claim is barred by qualified immunity because the Regents' investigation into Churchill's academic record does not implicate a clearly established statutory or constitutional … . 1839 Qualified immunity applies to a public official's conduct when she takes a discretionary action that a reasonable person would not know violates a clearly established constitutional right of the plaintiff.

Nathaniel Hicks v. Gerald Ferreyra

965 F.3d 302 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 14, 2020

Nor were the officers entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law under the “clearly established” prong of the inquiry: “[D]etaining [Hicks] under these circumstances – when the officers had a reasonable suspicion … Nor, again, could Phillips show that the alleged Fourth Amendment violation was not “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes. Id.