Case law

Harris v. City of Balch Springs

9 F. Supp. 3d 690 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 28, 2014

Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue. … If “the pleadings on their face show an unreasonable violation of a clearly established constitutional right,” assertion of a qualified immunity defense is insufficient to sustain a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

Bryant v. Pulaski County Detention Center

330 S.W.3d 461 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Feb 25, 2011

The trial court granted summary judgment based on sovereign immunity to the Detention Center, and to Brian Bishop based on qualified official immunity. … Those facts clearly establish that Bishop was not acting in good faith, either objectively or subjectively.

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.

Lane v. Nading

927 F.3d 1018 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 20, 2019

immunity because they had not violated any of Lane's clearly established constitutional rights. … The "officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was 'clearly established at the time.' " District

Thomas v. McGinnis

239 Mich. App. 636 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 2000

trial court granted the motion, finding that he was entitled to qualified immunity. … In an action brought under 42 USC 1983, a government official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified or good-faith immunity “ ‘insofar as [the official’s] conduct does not violate clearly established

Guerra v. Castillo

82 F.4th 278 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 7, 2023

cause is clearly established. … When evaluating whether Castillo violated clearly established law for purposes of our qualified immunity analysis, we consider whether the law was clearly established “at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct

Timothy Raimey v. City of Niles, Ohio

77 F.4th 441 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2023

“Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless their conduct violates clearly established rights.” Quigley v. … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects governmental officials from suit as long “as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

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

Nilesh S. Patel v. James Smith

969 F.3d 1173 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 11, 2020

qualified immunity. … immunity—that is, whether the right that Patel alleges was clearly established.

Bell v. City of Albany

210 Ga. App. 371 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Sep 23, 1993

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … App. 798 ( 432 SE2d 593 ) (1993). 4 Qualified immunity is a question of law for the court. Stone v.

John Wayne Charleston v. Clint Allen, Criminal District Attorney of Cass County

420 S.W.3d 134 · Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) · Oct 15, 2012

—Tyler 1996, no writ) (prosecutor entitled only to qualified immunity in making statements to press). 5 Under the federal standards for qualified immunity, a prosecutor would be “shielded 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.”

Abbas Khoshdel .M.D., Llyod Aschberger, Terri Pursley, and Jamie Williams v. Charles Goosby

Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco) · Nov 1, 2012

Government officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity from a suit for damages under section 1983 so long as the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … the clearly established right.

Meyers v. Baltimore County

981 F. Supp. 2d 422 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 1, 2013

Further, defendants maintained that, “ ‘[i]f the court finds that Officer Mee violated the Fourth Amendment then he is still entitled to qualified immunity because such an interpretation of the law was not clearly established … “Qualified immunity extends to protect officials ‘who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.’ ” Williams v.

Kerr v. Puckett

967 F. Supp. 354 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · May 21, 1997

Once a defendant has raised a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right. See Kernats, 35 F.3d at 1176 (citing Rakovich, 850 F.2d at 1209 ). … Consequently, these Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from Kerr’s suit for damages on his Establishment Clause claims.

James Solomon v. Deputy U.S. Marshal Thomas

795 F.3d 777 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 29, 2015

In this appeal, Jones and Thomas argue that the district court should have granted qualified immunity because the facts, as pleaded by Solomon, do not show a violation of clearly established rights. … of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before commencement of discovery."

Swedlund v. Foster

657 N.W.2d 39 · South Dakota Supreme Court · Jan 15, 2003

Otherwise, the protection of qualified immunity is effectively lost if there must be a trial to establish that no trial is necessary. Saucier v. … The test articulated by this Court in Hart is similar: “To find whether qualified immunity applies, the test is to ask if the officer’s conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable

(PC) Calloway v. Nieves

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 21, 2022

Lastly, defendants contend that they are entitled to 14 qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established federal law. … Qualified Immunity 22 “Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 23 violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

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

Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed, M. v. Irving Indep. Sch. Dist.

300 F. Supp. 3d 857 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 13, 2018

In analyzing qualified immunity claims, the Supreme Court has "repeatedly told courts ... to not define clearly established law at a high level of generality." Mullenix v. … "[T]o evaluate the 'clearly established law' prong of the qualified immunity test, the court must ask whether, at the time of the incident, the law clearly established that such conduct would violate the right."

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