Case law

Parker v. Armstrong

District Court, W.D. Texas · Aug 7, 2024

Qualified immunity bars suit against officers in their official capacity from liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory constitutional right. … Jones, 922 F.3d 309, 318 (5th Cir. 2019) (holding that before the qualified immunity inquiry discretionary authority must be established)).

Frank Minor v. Delaware River & Bay Authority

70 F.4th 168 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 8, 2023

“To resolve a claim of qualified immunity, [we] en- gage in a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether the plaintiff suffi- ciently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established … clearly established constitutional right.”

Nevarez v. Coleman

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jan 24, 2023

The qualified-immunity defense to such claims shields government officials who perform discretionary functions from suit and liability under section 1983, “unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory … Thus, an “officer will be entitled to qualified immunity if no constitutional violation occurred or if the conduct ‘did not violate law clearly established at the time.’” Davis v.

Welch v. Spaulding

627 F. App'x 479 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 30, 2015

immunity because Welch failed to show that they violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … . —, 134 S.Ct. 2012, 2023 , 188 L.Ed.2d 1056 (2014) (“An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was ‘clearly established

Calhoun v. Buck

371 F. Supp. 3d 1008 · District Court, D. Utah · Apr 5, 2019

Qualified Immunity Trooper Buck asserts he is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff's claims. … established right and therefore qualified immunity applies. a.

Kedra v. Schroeter

161 F. Supp. 3d 359 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2016

Under these circumstances, the vio-lative nature of Defendant’s alleged conduct has not been clearly established, and so Defendant is necessarily entitled to qualified immunity. IV. … at issue was clearly established.

Boston v. Suffolk Cnty.

326 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 9, 2018

certainly circumstances where an intoxicated person's statement that he or she does not need medical treatment should not be honored because it is inconsistent with other objective facts indicating that hospitalization is clearly … Plaintiff introduced, through deposition testimony, that Rangers Sokol and Paterson had never received any training from Smithtown on how to identify drugs; how drugs affect people; how to deal with individuals who are clearly

Barnthouse v. City of Edmond

74 O.B.A.J. 1297 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 22, 2003

Material issues of fact for a jury exist as to: (1) whether Cochran violated Appellants' clearly established constitutional rights for purposes of his individual qualified immunity defense to the § 1988 claim; and (@)whether … Whether Cochran is entitled to qualified immunity where his conduct violated Appellants' right to due process (a constitutional right), and that right was violated by Cochran when it was clearly established at the time of

Dimmitt v. City of Clearwater

985 F.2d 1565 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 23, 1993

Ordinarily a litigant offering a facial constitutional challenge to a statute must establish that “no set of circumstances exist under which the Act would be valid.” United States v. … To summarize, by exempting only government flags from the permit requirement, section 134.008(18) clearly restricts speech based upon its content.

McClelland v. Katy Indep Sch Dist

63 F.4th 996 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 31, 2023

Whether McClelland’s free speech rights were clearly established “A Government official’s conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time of the challenged conduct, ‘[t]he contours … established so as to defeat qualified immunity for Hull. 2.

Parking Authority of River City, Inc. v. Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Co.

477 S.W.3d 598 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Nov 6, 2015

Governmental immunity, on the other hand, is a derivative of sovereign immunity and is granted to qualified governmental agencies or entities. … The test for whether an entity qualifies for governmental immunity is two-pronged. Comair, 295 S.W.3d at 99 .

Ansley v. Heinrich

925 F.2d 1339 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 11, 1991

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity protects public officials, acting within the scope of their discretionary authority and under clearly established law, from insubstantial lawsuits. Butz v. … In Harlow , the Supreme Court stated that the immunity defense should fail if the law governing the official’s actions has been clearly established.

Morgan v. Wilson

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 5, 2022

Judicial Immunity “Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges for liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial … entitled to qualified immunity).

Roy Lee Williams v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

117 F.4th 503 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 20, 2024

But that rule was newly articulated, and this Court held that qualified immunity applied because that articulation of the right was not clearly established. Id. at 553. … Thus, a letter from a federal agency cannot satisfy the ‘clearly established’ standard for qualified immunity.

Oliver v. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs.

350 F. Supp. 3d 340 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 28, 2018

Qualified immunity shields *352 government officials from liability for civil damages as long as "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Because the plaintiff's right not to *353 be listed in the MSOR was not clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred, qualified immunity insulates the individual defendants in this case from liability under

Charles Jackson v. Billy D. Stair, III

944 F.3d 704 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 3, 2019

If so, qualified immunity does not shield the officer from liability if the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation. … Officer Stair argues that qualified immunity shields him from any potential liability related to the second tasing because Jackson did not have a clearly established right to excessive force at the time.

National Camera, Inc. v. Sanchez

832 P.2d 960 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 1991

Qualified immunity protects governmental officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability unless their actions violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … To overcome a qualified immunity defense, however, the plaintiff cannot simply identify a clearly established right in the abstract which the defendant has allegedly violated. Hilliard v.

Darnell Hines v. Ashrafe Youseff

914 F.3d 1218 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 1, 2019

So for the officials here to lose qualified immunity, it would have to have been clearly established that treating people of all races the same violated the Equal Protection Clause. … So we conclude that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. The rights that the inmates claim were not clearly established when the officials acted. Granting leave to amend would be futile.

Willard Berry v. Brian Doss

900 F.3d 1017 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 20, 2018

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), and argued that, because there was no evidence they ignored Berry’s complaint, they did not violate a clearly established Eighth Amendment right and thus were entitled to qualified immunity. … Our jurisdiction to consider an appeal of an order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity is limited to “‘the purely legal issue’ of ‘whether the facts . . . alleged support a claim of violation of clearly established

McCoy v. Meyers

887 F.3d 1034 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 10, 2018

“The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Id. at 1866 (quotations omitted). … McCoy’s clearly established right to be free from the continued use of force after he was effectively subdued. We address both steps of the qualified immunity analysis. a.