Case law

Jones v. Marcum

197 F. Supp. 2d 991 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 11, 2002

is per se violative of a “clearly established” right. … The ultimate, more particularized question in the qualified immunity context is whether Jones’ had a clearly established right under the facts as he states them. This case falls into the realm of Brandenburg .

Jetta Elliott v. Dusty Morgan, in His Official Capacity as a Deputy Sheriff of Boone County

603 S.W.3d 570 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 13, 2020

Toward this end, police officers have qualified immunity from liability in their individual capacity unless they violate a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would know. Harlow v. … A motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated that the constitutional right is clearly established

Tammy D. Scarbrough, Carol C. Davis v. Bryant Myles, Jr., Chuck Hall

245 F.3d 1299 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 29, 2001

Because Hall had arguable probable cause to arrest Scarbrough and Davis, he violated no clearly established law and is entitled to qualified immunity. 9 *1304 The district judge denied immunity to Myles, who was not involved … In addressing discretionary-function immunity and qualified immunity, our court has stated that "[ujnder both Alabama law and federal law, the core issue is whether a defendant violated clearly established law.”

Tuchman v. State

89 Conn. App. 745 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jun 24, 2005

The plaintiffs claim that the court improperly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the action on the basis of the doctrines of sovereign immunity, qualified immunity and statutory immunity. … “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 rights of which

Marvin Mead v. Charles Palmer

794 F.3d 932 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 24, 2015

In determining whether the defendants should receive qualified immunity, this court evaluates *936 (1) whether the facts alleged, construed in the light most favorable to [Mead], establish a violation of a constitutional … The district court denied qualified immunity to the nurse practitioners. Id.

Phoenician Mediterranean Villa, LLC v. Swope (In Re J & S Properties, LLC)

872 F.3d 138 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 28, 2017

clearly established law. … “To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must plead facts ‘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 conduct

Lucas v. The City of Reynoldsburg

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 2, 2025

because they violated no clearly established right. … Thus, an official sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time of the

Krupien v. Ritcey

112 N.E.3d 302 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 26, 2018

"[T]he relevant inquiry on summary judgment as to the defense of qualified immunity is whether a reasonable official could have believed his actions were lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information possessed … established religious rights. 13 Therefore, the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity.

Pasco Ex Rel. Pasco v. Knoblauch

566 F.3d 572 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 28, 2009

The district court denied summary judgment based on its findings that Knoblauch had waived his qualified immunity defense by failing to raise it in a timely fashion, and that Knoblauch violated clearly established Fourth … facts amount to a violation of clearly established law.”

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."

Schlicher v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners

363 Ill. App. 3d 869 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 6, 2006

The Supreme Court has explained the concept of a “clearly established” constitutional right in the context of a qualified immunity claim as follows: “ ‘[Cjlearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that … Because “it is well established that the qualified immunity doctrine does not apply to official capacity claims” (Ruffino v.

Jeremy Boudoin v. Terral Harsson

962 F.3d 1034 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 22, 2020

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a [§] 1983 action, unless the official’s conduct violates clearly established constitutional or statutory law of which a reasonable person would have known … In denying Harsson qualified immunity, the district court cited Nance v.

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

Sok Kong v. City of Burnsville

960 F.3d 985 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 29, 2020

They are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the facts show a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the misconduct. See Pearson v. … Because a reasonable jury could decide the officers violated this clearly established right when they shot Kong, I would affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity.

Bailey v. Pataki

722 F. Supp. 2d 443 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 6, 2010

If either prong is missing, qualified immunity is warranted; however, the burden is on defendants to establish qualified immunity. … that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Haywood v. Alexander

121 So. 3d 972 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Feb 22, 2013

‘An official is entitled to qualified immunity if he is performing discretionary functions and his actions do “ ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Jenkins’s ‘complaint allege[s] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.’ Ex parte Alabama Department of Youth Services, 880 So.2d at 402 .

Archuleta v. LaCuesta

128 N.M. 13 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 1999

Such a person is entitled to qualified immunity from suit, however, if his or her action was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. See Yount v. … reasonably believed that the action was lawful in light of clearly established constitutional principles, see Anderson v.

People v. Mazur

497 Mich. 302 · Michigan Supreme Court · Jun 11, 2015

Section 4 of the MMMA concerns immunity. A qualifying patient who receives a registry identification card is entitled to immunity, provided that certain conditions are met. MCL 333.26424(a). … The trial court’s contrary finding that “there is no evidence that she provided [marihuana paraphernalia] to a registered qualifying patient or registered caregiver” is clearly erroneous because elsewhere in its opinion the

Kauch v. Department for Children, Youth & Their Families

321 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 14, 2003

A three-part test is used to determine if an official is entitled to qualified immunity. First, a court considers whether "the plaintiff's allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation." … Second, we determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id.

Felicia Dean v. Stephen McKinney

976 F.3d 407 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Oct 2, 2020

The doctrine of qualified immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity—controversial, contested, and binding—is a familiar rule. 1 The doctrine shields the officer from suit unless his conduct violated “clearly established … But in doing so, the Court recognized that there was no clearly established law at the time of the crash in 2014 and granted qualified immunity. Id.