Case law

West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation v. Billie Taylor

West Virginia Supreme Court · May 2, 2023

Furthermore, the circuit court found questions of fact existed about qualified immunity, namely whether DOCR violated clearly established rights of the respondent about which a reasonable person would have known, or acted … When weighing the evidence regarding qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, a court is guided by the following standard: The ultimate determination of whether qualified or statutory immunity bars

Cheri Marie Hanson v. Daniel Best

915 F.3d 543 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 8, 2019

We have jurisdiction to the extent that we may resolve “abstract questions of law related to the qualified- immunity determination—typically, whether the allegedly infringed federal right was clearly established.” … Therefore, the right at issue is not clearly established, and the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on Hanson’s excessive force claim.

Harold E. Sivard, Jr. v. Pulaski County, Pulaski County Sheriff's Department, Charlotte Ward-Tillett, Individually and in Her Official Capacity

17 F.3d 185 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 16, 1994

Qualified Immunity of Sheriff Ward-Tillett An analysis of qualified immunity is appropriate only after resolution of the purely legal question of whether Sivard has alleged a violation of a constitutional right. … Frantz, 754 F.2d 719 (7th Cir.1985), as clearly establishing that his detention was unconstitutional.

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.

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).

Littles v. Commissioner of Correction

444 Mass. 871 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Aug 12, 2005

The doctrine of qualified immunity generally shields public officials from liability for civil damages for the performance of discretionary functions, “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … if so, the inquiry shifts to whether the right was so clearly established *879 that it would be plain to a reasonable official that his conduct was unlawful.

Hawkins v. State

117 N.C. App. 615 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 7, 1995

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the right violated was clearly established. Clark v. Link, 855 F.2d 156, 160 (4th Cir. 1988). … Accordingly, defendants did not violate any clearly established due process rights in terminating plaintiff and defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiff’s Fourteenth-Amendment due process claim. C.

Alvarez v. Worcester

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 27, 2020

Qualified Immunity The Court declines to dismiss Counts II or V on qualified immunity grounds.8 These claims relate to the fabrication of evidence and malicious prosecution based on this evidence … Condon, 372 F.3d at 48, Defendants have not shown entitlement to qualified immunity at this stage in the litigation.

Suissa v. Fulton County, GA

74 F.3d 266 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 6, 1996

Because that component of qualified immunity is established, "the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant "violated clearly established constitutional law.' " Id. … Just as no decision clearly establishes that the First Amendment is violated by an unsuccessful attempt to influence protected speech in general, none clearly establishes that it is violated by an unsuccessful attempt

Robin Mayfield v. Butler Snow, L.L.P.

976 F.3d 482 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 22, 2020

But in the context of qualified immunity, it is the plaintiff’s burden to establish that an allegedly violated right was clearly established. See, e.g., Wigginton v. Jones, 964 F.3d 329, 338 (5th Cir. 2020). … True, the Supreme Court has blessed our “sound discretion” to pivot solely on prong two of the qualified-immunity analysis. 1 And “clearly established law” is often outcome-determinative.

Duca v. Martins

941 F. Supp. 1281 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 20, 1996

Since defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on their federal .claims, and Duca has not identified any distinct right clearly established by state law, defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity on his Massachusetts … As demonstrated in the present section of this opinion, the typical non-Fourth Amendment qualified immunity analysis focuses on whether the particular right implicated is "clearly established.”

Marcus Blazek v. Juan Santiago

761 F.3d 920 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 5, 2014

Qualified immunity shields a public official from liability for civil damages when his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evi *923 dence, viewed in the light most favorable to Blazek, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established

Betty Jean Triplett v. Washington Dept of Social & Health Services

193 Wash. App. 497 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 21, 2016

The prevailing view is that once the defense of qualified immunity is properly raised, the plaintiff has the burden of showing the defendant violated the plaintiffs clearly established federal right. MARTIN A. … Clearly established law The individual defendants are still qualifiedly immune from liability, even for a constitutional violation, if their conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law

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.”

Burruss v. Riley

192 F. Supp. 3d 655 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jun 14, 2016

State officers are entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability for performing discretionary functions only insofar as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … To defeat qualified immunity in the mental health seizure context, a plaintiff must show that the “right allegedly violated was ‘clearly established’ in more than just a general sense.” Id.

Stewart v. Beach

701 F.3d 1322 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 18, 2012

Judge Robinson then turned to qualified immunity. … Furthermore, we harbor some doubt that Judge Belot’s denial of qualified immunity turned solely on whether the law was clearly established.

Christopher Majors v. City of West Des Moines

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 25, 2026

McCrystal, 708 F.3d 997, 1007–08 (8th Cir. 2013) (denying officer qualified immunity after plaintiff established a Franks violation), abrogation on other grounds recognized by Laney v. City of St. … establish probable cause if the allegedly false information were ignored.

Gaymon v. Borough of Collingdale

150 F. Supp. 3d 457 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2015

Defendants sought to redefine the focus of the qualified immunity analysis to whether there was a clearly established “First Amendment right to record” police, officers performing their official duties at the time of the … To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must allege facts showing that the Defendant officers’ conduct (1) “violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’

Dixon v. Baldwin

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 25, 2023

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

(PC) Trehearne v. Huggett

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 19, 2025

1 parole revocation acts like a police officer applying for an arrest warrant and is therefore entitled 2 to qualified immunity); Thornton v. … arising from the duty to supervise parolees is 9 covered by qualified immunity[.]”). 10 Plaintiff’s allegations in both claims two and three that he has been arrested and returned