Case law

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.

Jackson v. State Ex Rel. Dept. of Corrs.

785 So. 2d 803 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · May 15, 2001

The defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the beginning of discovery if the plaintiff's allegations do not state a claim of violation of clearly established law. … If the court determines that the law was clearly established at the time the action occurred, the Harlow analysis requires the public official claiming immunity to show that, because of extraordinary circumstances, "he neither

Bearman v. California Medical Board

176 Cal. App. 4th 1588 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 26, 2009

In determining whether supervisor has qualified immunity, we “undertake a two-step analysis: ‘(1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? … To avoid the qualified immunity defense, appellant must show that supervisor’s conduct “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. [Citations.]”

Slade v. Vernon

110 N.C. App. 422 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 1, 1993

The sole question upon review is whether the trial court erred in denying defendants’ summary judgment motion based upon public officers’ immunity, governmental immunity and qualified immunity. … In general, qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability for performing discretionary functions insofar as their conduct does not violate “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Rooks v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Corp. Commission

64 O.B.A.J. 39 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 24, 1992

The presumption of immunity is in favor of the government officials and is not overcome unless it is shown that they violated clearly established law or constitutional rights of which the reasonable official should have known … There is a presumption of qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official’s conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. McLin v. Trimble, supra, at 1041 , citing Mitchell v.

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.

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.”

Christopher Sandknop v. Brian O'Connell

932 F.3d 739 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 5, 2019

Dismissing a case on a 12(b)(6) motion for reasons of qualified immunity is appropriate when the “immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Ulrich v. … An official is entitled to the affirmative defense of qualified immunity “unless the evidence establishes (1) that a plaintiff’s constitutional rights have been violated, and (2) those rights were so clearly established at

Douglas Fuqua v. Brett Turner

996 F.3d 1140 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 6, 2021

The District Court agreed that Collier was entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the federal claims because, assuming Collier violated Fuqua’s Fourth Amendment rights, the violation was not clearly established … 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 person would have

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

Henry v. Purnell

428 F. Supp. 2d 393 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 21, 2006

Second, if the answer to the first question is yes, they are to further inquire “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … Purnell does not contend that he is entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that it is not clearly established that shooting someone with a handgun in the belief that a Taser is being fired constitutes a Fourth Amendment

Pauley v. Anchorage School District

31 P.3d 1284 · Alaska Supreme Court · Oct 5, 2001

Where it is alleged that an official has violated a statute, qualified immunity may be overcome "if the officials have violated 'clearly established' law, unless the officials can prove that they non-negligently were not … In claims of excessive force brought against a police officer qualified immunity will be sustained if "a reasonable official could have believed the challenged conduct was lawful in light of clearly established law and the

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.

Demetrius Hill v. C.O. Crum

727 F.3d 312 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 14, 2013

We do possess jurisdiction to consider this appeal from the denial of qualified immunity to the extent that Crum claims that his conduct did not violate clearly established law. See Winfield v. … His argument is that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Hill’s claimed constitutional violation was not clearly established at the time of the assault.

Williams v. Bitner

455 F.3d 186 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 25, 2006

We are asked to determine whether, for the purposes of qualified immunity, the conduct alleged by Williams constituted a violation of his “clearly established” rights. … Long, 72 F.3d 70, 72-74 (8th Cir. 1995) (denying qualified immunity because Muslim inmates had a clearly established right not to be forced to handle pork); Kenner v.

Decotiis v. Whittemore

635 F.3d 22 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 24, 2011

Qualified Immunity The district court held that Defendant Whittemore, in her individual capacity, is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not so clearly established as to put Whittemore on fair … A plaintiff may overcome qualified immunity by first making out the violation of a constitutional right, and second, establishing that the "right was 'clearly established' at the time of the defendant's alleged violation

Orozco v. Day

281 Mont. 341 · Montana Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1997

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages "'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … As discussed above, our threshold inquiry in addressing qualified immunity is whether the due process right arising from Orozco's liberty interest in good time credits was clearly established

Stramaski v. Lawley

44 F.4th 318 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 11, 2022

Bratch, 287 F.3d 673, 681–82 & n.13 (8th Cir. 2002) (rejecting qualified immunity defense because FMLA creates clearly established rights but stating defendant did not raise argument regarding application of qualified immunity … immunity because she does not allege that Lawley violated a clearly established law.

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.

Westmoreland v. State

73 Wash. App. 286 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 31, 1994

In deciding whether qualified immunity applies to discretionary functions, courts apply a 2-part objective test: (1) was the relevant law "clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation? … is clearly established that the particular act by the public official constitutes a violation of the right involved, rather than whether the right itself is clearly established”), cert. granted, vacated and appeal dismissed