Case law

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.

Galante v. County of Nassau

186 Misc. 2d 733 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 12, 2000

if either (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was objectively reasonable to believe that [their] acts did not violate these clearly established … [their] acts [do] not violate these clearly established rights.’ ” (Tenenbaum, at 596.)

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.

Lawless v. Sadeck

63 F.4th 61 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 22, 2023

, concluding that it is clearly established that a “sham” disciplinary hearing does not satisfy due process. … established law for purposes of our qualified immunity inquiry.

Jennings v. Hinkle

115 N.M. 387 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 1993

We hold that the officers did not violate clearly established law and, thus, had qualified immunity from Section 1983 liability. Accordingly, we affirm. … They retain the shield of qualified immunity as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Jody Lombardo v. City of St. Louis

38 F.4th 684 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 29, 2022

In concluding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity due to the lack of a clearly established right, we stated that, under the cases in this circuit addressing prone restraint, “there is no clearly established … Because the right at issue was not clearly established, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Davis v. Town of Southern Pines

116 N.C. App. 663 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 1, 1994

“The test of qualified immunity for police officers sued under [section 1983] is whether [the officers’ conduct violated] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … In ruling on the defense of qualified immunity we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation; and (3)

Petzak v. Nevada Ex Rel. Department of Corrections

579 F. Supp. 2d 1330 · District Court, D. Nevada · Sep 23, 2008

Dobel’s motion (# 18) for summary judgment raises only the issue of qualified immunity. A. Qualified Immunity and Money Damages Qualified immunity is a valid defense for a public official in an action for damages. … right in question was clearly established in the specific context of the case.

Walker v. Corizon Health

947 F.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 14, 2020

This court may choose to address either of the two qualified-immunity requirements first because, if “the plaintiff fails to establish either prong of the two-pronged qualified immunity standard, the defendant prevails on … immunity, the complaint must allege specific facts showing each defendant violated the defendant’s clearly established constitutional rights).

Jerry Nelson v. Keyvon Sellers

89 F.4th 1289 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 5, 2024

clearly established law.” … Nelson’s Right Was Clearly Established. All that remains is “the clearly established prong of the qual- ified immunity inquiry.” Helm 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.”

Holcomb v. McCraw

262 F. Supp. 3d 437 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Jun 27, 2017

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions” from civil liability for claims under federal law “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Even if an official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is “nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable.” Wallace v.

Livant v. Clifton

334 F. Supp. 2d 321 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 7, 2004

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is a three step analysis. Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 609 , 119 S.Ct. 1692 , 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999). … Then, [the Court] consider[s] if the violated right was clearly established at the time of the conduct. Finally, if plaintiff had a clearly established, constitutionally protected right that was violated ...

Ex Parte Madison County Bd. of Education

1 So. 3d 980 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 27, 2008

Foltz, 370 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir. 2004), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that, to overcome qualified immunity, not only must the government official violate a clearly established statutory or … Foltz, 370 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir.2004), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that, to overcome qualified immunity, not only must the government official violate a clearly established statutory or

Hassell v. Fischer

96 F. Supp. 3d 370 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 1, 2015

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “protects public officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability in a civil suit for damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity, therefore, turns on whether and when the rights that Hassell invokes were “clearly established.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 .

Farrell Ex Rel. Farrell v. Transylvania County Bd. of Educ.

199 N.C. App. 173 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 18, 2009

As this Court stated, “ ‘[qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability for performing official, discretionary functions if the conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Because Wohler’s alleged conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right to bodily integrity, of which defendant would have known, she is not entitled to the benefits of federal qualified immunity.

The West Virginia State Police, Department of Military Affairs v. J.H., a Minor, by and through His Parent and Next Friend, L.D.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 26, 2021

it violated a clearly established law or right in performing its discretionary functions. … Next, we must move forward in the qualified immunity analysis and determine whether J.H. has alleged that the acts of the Trooper Defendants were in violation of clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or

Trujillo v. City of Hobbs

District Court, D. New Mexico · Jan 14, 2020

In response, Trujillo contends Defendants frame the “clearly-established prong of the qualified immunity standard” using “self-serving” evidence and testimony provided by Officer Hopper, ignoring the legal mandate that … Under Garner and its progeny, the Court finds Trujillo has satisfied the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: it was clearly established that a police officer may not shoot an unarmed man standing more than

Weise v. Casper

593 F.3d 1163 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 27, 2010

Because the constitutional right asserted by the Plaintiffs was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, we affirm the grant of qualified immunity. … But in qualified immunity cases, except in the most obvious cases, broad, general propositions of law are insufficient to suggest clearly established law. See Brousseau v.

Jim Nahas v. Polk County, Iowa

Supreme Court of Iowa · Jun 9, 2023

The “clearly established” standard is thus inherently backward-looking. … Further, whether the law was clearly established is inextricably intertwined with the new qualified immunity defense and only relevant to this case to the extent the new qualified immunity defense is operative in this