Case law

Boggs v. Pearson

2021 S.D. 44 · South Dakota Supreme Court · Jul 28, 2021

“Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability and the burdens of litigation in a § 1983 action for damages unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right … immunity because it was not clearly established that their actions were unlawful.”

Bayer v. Monroe County Children and Youth Services

577 F.3d 186 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 14, 2009

And in light of Pearson , we need not reach this issue, as we find that, under the “clearly established” prong of the Saucier test, defendants should be afforded qualified immunity with respect to this claim. … See Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 822 (forgoing the first Saucier step and finding the defendants “are entitled to qualified immunity because [their conduct] did not violate clearly established law”).

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

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.

William Felkner v. Rhode Island College

Supreme Court of Rhode Island · Apr 20, 2023

Further, Felkner argues that qualified immunity does not apply to his request for equitable relief and that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because Felkner’s constitutional rights were established by … does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Diaz-Colon v. Toledo-Davila

980 F. Supp. 2d 214 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 24, 2013

In determining whether qualified immunity shields a state actor from liability, courts look at 1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right, and 2) whether the right at issue was clearly established … Taylor, 723 F.3d 91 (1st Cir.2013), and that the prohibition against “deliberately fabricating evidence and framing individuals for crimes they did not commit,” as alleged in this case, was clearly established as far back

Newman v. Kock

274 S.W.3d 697 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Aug 6, 2008

In response to Newman’s due process and due course claims, Appellees asserted the affirmative defenses of qualified immunity and official immunity and filed a traditional motion for summary judgment claiming that they established … that violated clearly established 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.

The West Virginia State Police, Department of Military Affairs v. J.H., a Minor, by and through His Parent and Next Friend, L.D.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 26, 2021

it violated a clearly established law or right in performing its discretionary functions. … Next, we must move forward in the qualified immunity analysis and determine whether J.H. has alleged that the acts of the Trooper Defendants were in violation of clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or

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.

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.

McIntire v. State

419 N.W.2d 799 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Feb 23, 1988

In Harlow the Supreme Court further explained the applicable test: If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing … Whether the law was clearly established is a threshold question; if the trial court finds the law was not clearly established when the conduct occurred, “the inquiry ceases” and “the official is entitled to summary judgment

Newhard v. Borders

649 F. Supp. 2d 440 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Sep 2, 2009

who allegedly searched through Newhard’s phone after the arrest is entitled to qualified immunity because Newhard’s constitutional right to be free from such a search under the Fourth Amendment was not “clearly established … The Unnamed Officer who allegedly searched through the cell phone did not violate any “clearly established” constitutional right of New-hard’s under the Fourth Amendment and is thus entitled to qualified immunity.

Glover v. Gartman

899 F. Supp. 2d 1115 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 27, 2012

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualifted Immunity Analysis. … The Supreme Court has clarified that the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity test is a very high burden for the plaintiff: “A Government official’s conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time

Kruger v. Grauer

173 Conn. App. 539 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jun 6, 2017

Indeed, it is well established that conditioning immunity on the exercise of good faith is consistent with qualified immunity, not absolute immu- nity. See, e.g., Villages, LLC v. Longhi, 166 Conn. … and qualified immunity as grounds for summary judgment.

Jenkins v. Hale

6 So. 3d 452 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Oct 10, 2008

Therefore, whether Sheriff Hale is entitled to qualified immunity from Jenkins’s § 1983 claim turns on whether the “complaint ... allege[s] the violation of [that] clearly established constitutional right.” … On a motion to dismiss a § 1983 claim because of qualified immunity, this Court looks to the complaint to determine only whether the “ ‘ “complaint ... allege[s] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right

Rouse v. Plantier

997 F. Supp. 575 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 9, 1998

The level of generality at which the right asserted must be “clearly established” is the key conceptual issue in many qualified immunity cases, and has been clearly articulated by Plaintiffs, see Plaintiffs’ Letter-Brief … right to adequate medical care was “clearly established.”

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.

Showalter v. North Carolina Department of Crime Control & Public Safety

183 N.C. App. 132 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 1, 2007

Defendants argue the trial court erred in concluding that Trooper Emmons was not entitled to qualified immunity because the right which plaintiff alleges to have been violated was not clearly established at the time and because … The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Jason Cunningham v. Shelby Cnty., Tenn.

994 F.3d 761 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 19, 2021

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff alleges facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established … The district court pointed to precedent from this court that it believed had clearly established before March of 2017 that, for Paschal and Wiggins to be entitled to qualified immunity under the circumstances of this case