Case law

B.R. v. West Virginia DHHR

West Virginia Supreme Court · Oct 13, 2020

In affirming the circuit court’s decision, this Court found that pleading simple negligence, without a violation of a clearly established right, is insufficient to overcome qualified immunity. … I. reveals that this Court reviewed the pleadings and found that “[p]leading simple negligence, without a violation of a clearly established right, is insufficient to overcome qualified immunity.” B.R.I., at *2. In B.

Sturdivant v. Fine

22 F.4th 930 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 7, 2022

Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for violating statutory or constitutional rights that are not clearly established. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009). … Sch., 321 F.3d 1285, 1288–89 (10th Cir. 2003) (concluding that a teacher was not entitled to qualified immunity from a student’s claim of sexual harassment because the right had been clearly established in employment

Damon Wilson v. Prince George's County, Md

893 F.3d 213 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 18, 2018

Nevertheless, we affirm the district court’s determination that Officer Gill is entitled to qualified immunity, because we hold that the constitutional violation was not clearly established when the incident occurred. … A right need not be recognized by a court in a specific factual context before such right may be considered “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity.

John E. Green v. J. Kenneth Brantley, Edgar v. Lewis, Craig R. Smith, Garland P. Castleberry

941 F.2d 1146 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 12, 1991

The doctrine of qualified immunity affords immunity from suit to government officials performing discretionary functions as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … that make out violations of clearly established law.

Max Ross v. Ed Hinton, Jr.

937 F.2d 609 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 9, 1991

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-24 (1986). 8 Ross argues that the district court erred in finding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. We disagree. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (state officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless their actions violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known).

Novitsky v. City of Aurora

491 F.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 5, 2007

Novitsky’s first claim, the district court concluded the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because, on June 9, 2001, they did not violate clearly established law by removing M r. … W e therefore turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, asking whether Officer W ortham violated clearly established law. 2.

John Mclaughlin v. Alex Watson

271 F.3d 566 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 20, 2001

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2732 (1982) (citations omitted)). 21 In order to defeat an assertion of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege that the official violated a "clearly established" right. … In the Motion to Dismiss, Stiles clearly asserted a "qualified immunity" defense. App. at 258.

Easter v. Powell

467 F.3d 459 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 10, 2006

decide if the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law at the time of the incident.11 A government official is entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) the plaintiff failed … When a government official violates a constitutional right, the official is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity if his or her conduct is objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law.27 A law is “clearly

Colbruno v. Kessler

928 F.3d 1155 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 2, 2019

"Because qualified immunity establishes immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability, a district court's denial of a claim of qualified immunity is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ." Id. … Qualified Immunity There remains the question whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Was the law clearly established that their conduct (as alleged by Plaintiff) violated the Fourteenth Amendment?

United States v. Arnott

758 F.3d 40 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 2, 2014

DISCUSSION When reviewing the district court's disposition of a motion to suppress, we accept the court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. See United States v.

Estate of Hill ex rel. Hill v. Miracle

853 F.3d 306 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 4, 2017

Miracle’s qualified-immunity defense Qualified immunity shields “government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Miracle is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on Hill’s § 1983 claim of excessive force. 2. Hill’s Fourth Amendment right was not clearly established.

Manchester v. State of Louisiana

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Nov 13, 2024

Again, qualification examinations are generally conducted at the pretext stage of a Title VII failure-to-promote analysis, and even if Plaintiff were “clearly better qualified,” Toval, 614 F. … dofes] not establish that [an applicant] is clearly better qualified” (quoting Price v. Fed. Express Corp., 283 F.3d 715, 723 (5th Cir. 2002)); see also Deines v. Tex.

Bentz v. Marion, Kansas, City of Case Consolidated for Discovery; All Non-Dispositive filings to be made in Lead Case 23-cv-1179

District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 28, 2025

Sept. 30, 2021) (declining to consider qualified immunity where defendants didn’t “address whether the Fourth Amendment rights at issue were clearly established”). … So, Hudlin didn’t violate clearly established law and qualifies for qualified immunity.

Rainey v. Hartness

339 Ark. 293 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 2, 1999

Qualified Immunity — Federal Law Generally, government officials performing discretionary functions are granted a qualified immunity from suit under section 1983 and are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar … Courts evaluating a claim of immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and, if so, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

Washington v. City of Cincinnati, Ohio

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 7, 2024

That is enough for the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 12 (2015) (requiring cases proffered as factually analogous “to speak [] to the specific circumstances” at bar for the clearly established prong of qualified immunity).

Traylor v. Gerratana

148 Conn. App. 605 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Mar 11, 2014

‘‘Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established … Novarro, 624 F.3d 522, 530 (2d Cir. 2010); then qualified immunity applies.

Pablo F. Maldonado v. Unnamed

648 F. App'x 939 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 26, 2016

Finally, he contended the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity, because he had shown they violated his clearly established constitutional rights. … He further asserts the judge erroneously applied a heightened standard of proof concerning the clearly established law prong of the qualified-immunity defense.

Barboza v. D'Agata

151 F. Supp. 3d 363 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 10, 2015

In this Circuit, even if the right was clearly established, an.officer is entitled to qualified immunity if it was objectively. reasonable for the officer to believe the conduct at issue was lawful, Gonzalez v. … That’s the first prong of the qualified immunity test. *371 I also find that plaintiffs right not to be arrested for the expression at issue was clearly established.

Doe v. University of Mississippi

District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Mar 29, 2023

While Defendants’ briefing on qualified immunity is likewise limited, they squarely—and correctly— argued in their opening memorandum that “the plaintiff has the burden to establish that the alleged conduct violates clearly-established … Miss. 2019) (granting qualified immunity on due-process claims and noting “Doe does not cite a single case that would put these Defendants on notice that their conduct violated clearly established law”).

Charles Mozzochi v. Richard S. Borden, Jr., Paul J. Gibbons, Richard S. Borden, Jr., Paul J. Gibbons, Town of Glastonbury

959 F.2d 1174 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 19, 1992

Because the district court framed the qualified immunity question too generally, it wrongly concluded that the defendant officials’ alleged actions violated clearly established constitutional rights. … Because it held that the defendants’ motive and conduct, if proven, violated clearly established rights, the district court rejected the defendants’ summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity.