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.

Attocknie Ex Rel. M.P. v. Smith

798 F.3d 1252 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 24, 2015

Cherry’s entry of Aaron’s home was clearly contrary to well-established law. He is not entitled to qualified immunity on the claim of unlawful entry. … It then summarizes his view of the law of qualified immunity but concludes that “[t]he second stage of qualified immunity analysis, whether a right was ‘clearly established’ need not even be performed, as Defendant Smith

Amore v. Novarro

624 F.3d 522 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 22, 2010

Government officials are entitled to 2 qualified immunity "insofar as their conduct does not violate 3 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a 4 reasonable person would have known." … Ct. at 813 ("We now hold that the Saucier procedure should not be regarded as an inflexible requirement and that petitioners are entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that it was not clearly established

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.

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."

Andrews v. Crump

144 N.C. App. 68 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 5, 2001

They may, however, raise the defense of qualified immunity to section 1983 claims. Id. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Manzanares v. Roosevelt Cnty. Adult Det. Ctr.

331 F. Supp. 3d 1260 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Aug 30, 2018

Although the Tenth Circuit has recognized a sliding scale for qualified immunity's clearly established inquiry, see Casey v. … Fitzgerald , when the Supreme Court moved to an objective test, the clearly established prong became a part of the qualified immunity test.

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.

Ohio Civil Service Employees Association v. Richard P. Seiter

858 F.2d 1171 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 4, 1988

The court stated that this decision added to the evidence that clearly established the protected right in this case. Until recently, the controlling Supreme Court case on qualified immunity, Wood v. … Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.”

Breault v. Chairman of the Board of Fire Commissioners

401 Mass. 26 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 13, 1987

established.” … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987) (principle of qualified immunity allows defendant to seek summary judgment on ground that, on “clearly established principles [of law],” he could have reasonably believed his acts to be

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

Tormasi v. Lanigan

363 F. Supp. 3d 525 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 28, 2019

could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity." *538 Mammaro v. … clearly established right to circumcision."

Martin v. Haas

556 S.W.3d 509 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 11, 2018

That case is clearly not on point. … elections in this State are legally qualified to vote in such elections" modifies the requirement of "establish[ing] a system of permanent personal registration."

Anderson v. Vasquez

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 30, 2019

To avoid summary judgment based on qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show both that the defendant violated a federal right and that the right was already clearly established in light of the circumstances that occurred … “The burden of showing that an officer violated clearly established law falls on the plaintiff, and a plaintiff’s citation of general rules or abstract rights is insufficient to strip a 1983 defendant of his qualified immunity

Jennifer L. Burbridge v. Marcus Biggins

2 F.4th 774 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 25, 2021

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known … Alternatively, Appellants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in this circuit whether the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine applied to bar § 1983 conspiracy claims.

City of San Juan v. Gonzalez

22 S.W.3d 69 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Jun 1, 2000

the officers are entitled to qualified immunity under federal law as their actions in effecting appellee’s arrest were lawful in light of clearly established law and the information possessed by the officers at the time … If there is, we determine whether the government official’s “actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law,” entitling him to qualified immunity. Id.

Shoemaker v. Smith

353 Md. 143 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 10, 1999

'abstract issu[e] of law’ relating to qualified immunity ... … —typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was 'clearly established. ..

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."

Lee Rice, II v. Dale Morehouse

989 F.3d 1112 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 8, 2021

CLEARLY ESTABLISHED LAW The district court held that even if Morehouse and Shaffer used excessive force, they were entitled to qualified immunity. … MOREHOUSE denying the officer qualified immunity, we said that the “right to be free of excessive force was clearly established” at the time of Emmons’s arrest in 2013. Emmons v. City of Escondido, 716 F.

Forney v. Purvis

190 Ga. App. 192 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jan 13, 1989

“[T]he appealable issue [on a claim for qualified immunity] is a purely legal one: whether the facts alleged (by the' plaintiff, or, in some cases, the defendant) support a claim of violation of clearly established law.” … If, as plaintiff alleges, defendants denied her equal protection of the law because of her union membership, then their conduct was violative of clearly established law and would not be protected by qualified immunity from