Case law

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.

Tolliver v. Jordan

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 1, 2021

Accordingly, on the facts before it, the Court cannot conclude that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See, e.g., Hernandez v. Goord, 312 F. … Supp. 2d 537, 548-49 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (defendants’ alleged improperly-motivated prison transfers in retaliation for inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights violated clearly established law, making qualified immunity

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 .

Hughes v. Kisela

862 F.3d 775 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 28, 2016

“In determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we consider (1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established *783 at the time of the … [genuine factual] issues is crucial to a proper determination of the officers’ entitlement to qualified immunity,” and remanded the question whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct,

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

Bledsoe v. Jefferson County

275 F. Supp. 3d 1240 · District Court, D. Kansas · Aug 4, 2017

Unless the official’s alleged conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, qualified immunity applies. Id. … Morgan’s alleged conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, qualified immunity shields him from suit. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Mr.

Solis v. Serrett

31 F.4th 975 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 21, 2022

“Qualified immunity shields public officials sued in their individual capacities from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “The qualified immunity inquiry includes two parts.

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.

Galloway v. County of Nassau

141 F.4th 417 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 26, 2025

While we have disapproved tactics used in the photo 29 identifications here, we need not decide whether they violated clearly 30 established law; Lipson’s qualified immunity defense fails in any 31 event because he … But that subjective intent—absent some future development in the case law—does not affect the qualified immunity analysis. The procedures here did not violate clearly established law for being unduly suggestive.

SINGH v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 2, 2023

Finally, the individual capacity claims fail on qualified immunity grounds because the Individual Defendants did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.”)

J.P. v. D.P.

260 So. 3d 862 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Mar 30, 2018

App. 2008) ("Although these incidents were somewhat remote in time, they still evidence the character of the paternal grandmother and clearly and convincingly prove that she was not fit and qualified to receive and care for … App. 2012) (" ' "We should not equate the filing of 'court papers' and the taking of legal positions with the establishment of human relationships." ' [ Ex parte J.W.B. , 933 So.2d 1081 , 1092 (Ala. 2005) ](quoting K.W.J.

Fleming v. City of Bridgeport

92 Conn. App. 400 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Nov 29, 2005

Therefore, in reviewing . . . claims of qualified immunity we are bound by federal precedent, and may not expand or contract the contours of the immunity available to government officials.” … “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

Smith v. Haley

401 F. Supp. 2d 1240 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 1, 2005

(officials violated RLUIPA but entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a “clearly established” right); Williams v. Bitner, 359 F.Supp.2d 370 (M.D.Pa.2005) (Conner, J.) … In short, as long as their decision to deny Smith possession of the crystal was not contrary to clearly established law, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Hanes v. Zurick

578 F.3d 491 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 18, 2009

that right was clearly established. … ” the court indicated that the right was clearly established.

Maldonado v. Fontanes

568 F.3d 263 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 4, 2009

It is clear from the Supreme Court's description of the second, "clearly established" step of the qualified immunity analysis that the second step, in turn, has two aspects. … These are principles of law, and the law was sufficiently recognized by courts to be clearly established. See Wilson v.

J.H. v. West Virginia Division of Rehabilitation Services

224 W. Va. 147 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 27, 2009

Va.Code, 29-12A-1, et seq., 11 is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known. … Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

Wilson v. Maricopa County

484 F. Supp. 2d 1015 · District Court, D. Arizona · Dec 19, 2006

This right is clearly established. … Denial of Qualified Immunity on Summary Judgment.