Case law

Lynch v. Ackley

811 F.3d 569 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 28, 2016

Held, the district court erred in 24 denying qualified immunity because there was no clearly established precedent at the time of the 25 defendant’s conduct that her conduct violated constitutional norms. … immunity because of the absence of clearly settled law to that effect at the time of the conduct.

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

Henry v. Dinelle

929 F. Supp. 2d 107 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 8, 2013

Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 190 , 104 S.Ct. 3012 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984) ("Even defendants who violate [clearly established] constitutional rights enjoy a qualified immunity that protects them from liability for damages unless … Templeton, 505 F.3d 161, 169-70 (2d Cir.2007) ("[Ejven where the law is 'clearly established’ and the scope of an official's permissible conduct is 'clearly defined,' the qualified immunity defense also protects an official

Corum v. University of North Carolina

330 N.C. 761 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 31, 1992

After filing an answer containing defenses, which included sovereign immunity and qualified immunity, defendants moved for summary judgment. … This is because “[i]f the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.”

Foote v. Spiegel

118 F.3d 1416 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 8, 1997

Defendants argued Spiegel had probable cause for the arrest and reasonable suspicion for the strip search, and that he was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law. … did not violate clearly established law.

Arcoren v. Peters

627 F. Supp. 1513 · District Court, D. South Dakota · Feb 13, 1986

The qualified immunity defense applies equally to RzVews-styled constitutional tort actions and cases brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Butz, 438 U.S. at 500-01 , 98 S.Ct. at 2907-08 . Clearly Established Rights. … Having violated no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of plaintiff, the individual defendants must be dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity. 1 .

Williams v. Vannoy

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Dec 19, 2023

Reinert, Qualified Immunity’s Flawed Foundation, 111 CAL. L. REV. 201 (2023). Restored to its proper place, this clause “unequivocally negate[s] the original interpretive premise for qualified immunity.” See Rogers v. … Plaintiff has also carried his burden to show that the law was clearly established at the time Lt. Col. Knight and Capt.

Petcu v. State

121 Wash. App. 36 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 30, 2004

Finally, he argued that Smith was not entitled to qualified immunity because she violated Petcu’s clearly established right to family unity. … Once a defendant asserts a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that a clearly established constitutional right exists. Robinson, 119 Wn.2d at 65-66 .

Booth v. City of Dallas

312 F.R.D. 427 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 18, 2015

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields ‘government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … That is, even if a government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is entitled to immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable. See Davis v.

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.

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

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

McMullen v. Starkville Oktibbeha Consolidated School District

200 F. Supp. 3d 649 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jul 29, 2016

To raise qualified immunity, “[a]n officer need only plead his good faith, which then shifts the burden to the plaintiff, who must rebut the defense by establishing that the officer’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly … A civil rights “plaintiff can overcome a qualified immunity defense by showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged

Thomas Cannon v. Village of Bald Head Island

891 F.3d 489 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 30, 2018

“Because the first two prongs of the test are questions of law, an employer is entitled to qualified immunity if either prong cannot be resolved under clearly established law.” Crouse, 848 F.3d at 583. … In sum, under our qualified immunity analysis, at the time of the disclosures this Court’s precedent clearly established that the allegedly stigmatizing statements were made public by Peck.

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.

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.”

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."

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.