Case law

Dokman v. County of Hennepin

637 N.W.2d 286 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Dec 18, 2001

A governmental official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity if the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights that a reasonable person would … Evaluating a claim of qualified immunity involves two inquiries: (1) “whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right”; and (2) whether an officer could reasonably have believed

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.

Shaniz West v. City of Caldwell

931 F.3d 978 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 25, 2019

Principles Governing Qualified Immunity Police officers have qualified immunity for their official conduct unless (1) they violate a federal statutory or constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established … established case law in qualified immunity cases.

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.”

Gloria Bustillos v. El Paso County Hospital Dist

891 F.3d 214 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 23, 2018

The district court held those allegations cannot overcome the Doctors’ and Nurses’ qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly-established. We agree and affirm on that ground. … Granting of qualified immunity on the “clearly-established” prong is not the same as holding that no constitutional violation occurred. That would conflate the two prongs 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.”

Ramona Hinojosa v. Brad Livingston

807 F.3d 657 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 18, 2015

If true, this would defeat a qualified immunity defense, because it would establish that Defendants subjected Hinojosa to extreme temperatures without adequate remedial measures, in violation of our circuit’s clearly established … light of clearly established law.

Strickland v. City of Crenshaw

114 F. Supp. 3d 400 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jul 20, 2015

in qualified immunity cases. … Thus, plaintiffs are clearly unable to survive a qualified immunity defense with regard to any property damage claims. .

Herman Louis Dimartini v. Lynn Jay Ferrin, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation

889 F.2d 922 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 21, 1989

immunity, arguing that his actions, even as alleged, did not violate clearly established fifth amendment rights. … Government officials performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity, from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Armstrong v. City Of Melvindale

432 F.3d 695 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 6, 2006

Qualified Immunity Framework 8 Qualified immunity shields public officials who perform discretionary functions from the necessity of defending against tort liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established … right was clearly established."

Naumovski v. Norris

934 F.3d 200 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 12, 2019

Qualified Immunity A government official is entitled to immunity from suit whenever (1) his conduct “did not violate clearly established law,” or (2) “it was objectively reasonable for [the official] to believe that … Because Naumovski has failed to produce evidence that could establish that Defendants themselves clearly violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights, Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity

Henson v. Foster

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Feb 10, 2023

Qualified immunity “shields [a] government official from liability in a section 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known.” Brown v. … of whether the detainees rights were clearly established). 2.

Villarreal v. City of Laredo

134 F.4th 273 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 8, 2025

Ct. 2088, 2093 (2012) (qualified immunity applies unless officials “violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct”). … The qualified immunity inquiry asks whether an officer “violate[d] clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818.

Noble v. City of Camden

112 F. Supp. 3d 208 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 29, 2015

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity “if a reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed” to arrest Plaintiff “in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] '’ officers … of qualified immunity. .

Melene James v. City of Boise

158 Idaho 713 · Idaho Supreme Court · May 21, 2015

The Court explained why the “clearly established law” could not be so general that it would eliminate the rule of qualified immunity. … With respect to qualified immunity, the court of appeals held that there was no clearly established law that the officer’s “use of a police dog to search and bite was unconstitutional.” Id. at 1092 .

Cline v. State, Division of Child & Family Services

539 Utah Adv. Rep. 33 · Court of Appeals of Utah · Nov 17, 2005

The Spiel-man court held that the section 1983 claims against Hildebrand were barred by qualified immunity because plaintiffs could not show a violation of any clearly established constitutional or statutory right. … Thus, the section 1983 claims against Forsyth are barred by qualified immunity because Cline cannot show a violation of any clearly established constitutional or statutory right. B.

Rogerson v. Fitzpatrick

170 N.C. App. 387 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 17, 2005

Forsyth, for support of the proposition that when a court looks at qualified immunity, "[a]ll it need determine is a question of law." … Likewise, this Court has concluded that when 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

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.

Hernandez Carrasquillo v. Rivera Rodriguez

281 F. Supp. 2d 329 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 2, 2003

; 2) if it does, was the constitutional right clearly established at the time of the facts alleged in the complaint? … Furthermore, we find that they may be enough to establish the reckless disregard of a clearly established constitutional right necessary to overcome Defendants’ qualified immunity.

Williams v. Bitner

455 F.3d 186 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 25, 2006

We are asked to determine whether, for the purposes of qualified immunity, the conduct alleged by Williams constituted a violation of his “clearly established” rights. … Long, 72 F.3d 70, 72-74 (8th Cir. 1995) (denying qualified immunity because Muslim inmates had a clearly established right not to be forced to handle pork); Kenner v.