Case law

Moody v. City of Newport News

193 F. Supp. 3d 530 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 16, 2016

Clearly Established Further, even if Hollandsworth used excessive force, she would still be entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate a clearly established' constitutional right. … Clearly Established Law Alternatively, even if Gibson did use excessive force, he would still be entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Carrero v. Farrelly

310 F. Supp. 3d 581 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 19, 2018

In other words, he is entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right at issue was not clearly established. … In determining whether a constitutional right is clearly established or not for purposes of qualified immunity courts must consider whether "any reasonable official in the defendant's shoes would have understood that he was

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.

Jonathan Capp v. County of San Diego

940 F.3d 1046 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 4, 2019

clearly established. … Clearly Established Having determined that Plaintiffs plead a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim, we now move to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether “the right at issue was ‘clearly

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

Marks v. Smith

241 F. Supp. 3d 726 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Mar 10, 2017

In their motion for summary judgment, these defendants argue Plaintiffs claims against them in their individual capacities should be dismissed, because they are protected by qualified immunity. 27 “Qualified immunity protects … public officials from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” 28 As explained by the United States Supreme Court, “qualified immuni *732 ty seeks to ensure that defendants reasonably

Lombardo v. Saint Louis City

361 F. Supp. 3d 882 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Feb 1, 2019

established right and were entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendants have appealed the portion of the court's order denying them qualified immunity based on whether the law was clearly established law. The same is true for Hopper v.

Kostic v. Texas A & M University at Commerce

11 F. Supp. 3d 699 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 31, 2014

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Even if the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, a defendant will still be entitled to qualified immunity if the defendant’s conduct was “objectively reasonable in light of ‘clearly established

Randall Ehlers v. Scott Dirkes

846 F.3d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 25, 2017

statutory right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” … A reasonable officer would not have understood the action in question to constitute excessive force.4 Thus, the law was not clearly established, and Rybak is entitled to qualified immunity. 4 Ehlers relies

Patrick Russell v. Jocelyn Lumitap

31 F.4th 729 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 13, 2022

, but instead argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate Russell’s clearly established constitutional rights on the record taken in the light most favorable to Russell. … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless the unlawfulness of his conduct was clearly established at the time that he acted,40 and the law at the time that the defendants acted was different than it is now.

Morris v. Huebsch

3 F. Supp. 3d 746 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Feb 28, 2014

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit for “performing discretionary functions in the course of duty to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Under the second prong, the plaintiff must show that “the right was clearly established.” Id. Whether a right was clearly established at the relevant time is a question of law, Lewis v.

Jimerson v. Lewis

94 F.4th 423 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 1, 2024

Indeed, it is useful to divide this second component of qualified immunity into two questions: “whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident; and, if so … established law for qualified immunity analysis.”

Bellamy v. Wells

626 F. Supp. 2d 595 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · May 15, 2009

Defendants maintain that they did not violate Bellamy’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, but even if they did they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not contravene any clearly established constitutional … immunity when there is a violation of clearly established federal law.

Ande v. Rock

256 Wis. 2d 365 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · May 16, 2002

Qualified immunity overview. ¶ 15. … Wisconsin or federal case law *388 clearly establishing such an interest. Therefore, we conclude that qualified immunity bars all their federal claims. 16 CONCLUSION ¶ 22.

Ron Nord v. Walsh County

757 F.3d 734 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 26, 2014

If, upon application of the test, Nord’s rights were not clearly established, Wild is, of course, entitled to a qualified immunity defense against Nord’s claims. … immunity because Wild’s actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. *745 III.

Mitchell v. Township of Willingboro Municipality Government

913 F. Supp. 2d 62 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 28, 2012

The Third Circuit has clearly held that “qualified immunity will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Thomas v. … Defendant Perez does not argue that Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights in this case were not clearly established. Consequently, the Plaintiffs complaint satisfies the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Belizaire v. City of Miami

944 F. Supp. 2d 1204 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Apr 16, 2013

Belizaire has failed to satisfy her burden of alleging the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the Court finds that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. First, Ms. … Belizaire fails to allege the violation of a clearly established right, Expósito is entitled to qualified immunity. See Bailey v.

Lawless v. Sadeck

63 F.4th 61 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 22, 2023

, concluding that it is clearly established that a “sham” disciplinary hearing does not satisfy due process. … established law for purposes of our qualified immunity inquiry.

Connell v. Signoracci

153 F.3d 74 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 21, 1998

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss if the allegations of the complaint fail to “state a claim of violation of clearly established law.” Behrens v. … Qualified immunity shields officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Kauch v. Department for Children, Youth & Their Families

321 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 14, 2003

A three-part test is used to determine if an official is entitled to qualified immunity. First, a court considers whether "the plaintiff's allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation." … Second, we determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id.