Case law

Rosen v. City of New York

667 F. Supp. 2d 355 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 28, 2009

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages under federal claims insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity when “(1) Plaintiff fails to allege a violation of a federal right; (2) the right alleged was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation; or (3) the

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.

Fred Halcomb, Jr. v. Tamarra Ravenell

992 F.3d 316 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 30, 2021

Determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity “typically involves two inquiries: (1) whether the plaintiff has established the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly … Here, we conclude that even assuming a violation of Appellee’s due process rights, Appellant is entitled to qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Covert v. Kelley

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 27, 2023

were entitled to qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established). … The Eighth Circuit has described the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity as follows: Qualified immunity shields a government official from suit

Von Stein v. Brescher

696 F. Supp. 606 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 5, 1988

, their conduct violated “clearly established law.” … Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 194-95 , 104 S.Ct. 3012, 3019-20 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984), any claim to qualified immunity would not be lost merely for the violation of the clearly established law embodied in that statute.

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.

Megan Green v. Cliff Sommer

52 F.4th 734 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 1, 2022

issue,’ involve a clearly established violation of federal law.” … On an appeal from a denial of qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss phase, “this court is constrained to the legal question whether the particular facts support the [plaintiff’s] claim that [defendants] violated clearly

McKinsey v. Vernon

130 Idaho 354 · Idaho Supreme Court · Jun 5, 1997

The three-part inquiry to determine if a public official asserting qualified immunity is entitled to the defense is: 1. Was there a clearly established law? 2. … Did the conduct of the party asserting qualified immunity violate a clearly established right of the party claiming the violation? 3. Was the conduct of the party asserting qualified immunity reasonable? Farnworth v.

Janaszak v. State

173 Wash. App. 703 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 7, 2013

law. 37 A claim of qualified immunity to a § 1983 action presents two issues: (1) do the facts make out a violation of a constitutional right and (2) was the right at issue “clearly established” at the time of the defendant … ’s alleged misconduct. 38 Qualified immunity applies unless the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established right. 39 Both issues present “ ‘essentially legal question [s]’ ” for the court to decide. 40 The court may

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.

Watson v. City of Kansas City, Kan.

80 F. Supp. 2d 1175 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 8, 1999

“If the district court denies the defendant qualified immunity, the court should identify on the record the defendant’s conduct that violated clearly established law.” Mick v. … In arguing against qualified immunity, plaintiffs do not cite a single case which establishes that defendants’ conduct violated clearly established procedural due process rights.

Foster v. Runnels

554 F.3d 807 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 5, 2009

The District Court however found that Cole was entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right in question was not clearly established. … Clearly Established Right The District Court found that Cole was entitled to qualified immunity because the Eighth Amendment right to adequate food was not clearly established such that it would be clear to a reasonable corrections

Mattos v. Agarano

661 F.3d 433 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 17, 2011

We now hold that, although Plaintiffs in both cases have alleged constitutional violations, the officer Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims because the law was not clearly established … Defendant Officers Did Not Violate Clearly Established Law When They Tased Mattos We next turn to whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity for the force they used against Jayzel in August 2006.

Camden v. Hilton

360 S.C. 164 · Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Jun 7, 2004

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively … Treen, 671 F.2d 892, 896 (5th Cir.1982) (“Qualified immunity now depends on the objective reasonableness of an officials conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law, not upon malice or other subjective factors

Vest v. Easley

145 N.C. App. 70 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 17, 2001

They may, however, defend by raising the defense of qualified immunity. Id. … Qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability for performing official, discretionary functions if the conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Meek, Brandon v. Brock, Chase

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Sep 26, 2023

Third, they argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … That made defendants’ continued use of force against him—including the taser— reasonable, or at least covered by qualified immunity.

Tanvir v. Tanzin

120 F.4th 1049 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 29, 2024

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from damages unless a reasonable person in her position would have understood that her conduct fell within the scope of a clearly established prohibition. … ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Cortezz Dickerson v. William Bower

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Feb 21, 2025

DISPOSITIVE ORDER FINDING QUALIFIED OFFICIAL IMMUNITY AND THE PROPER STANDARD OF REVIEW Appellees asserted in their answer to the complaint the affirmative defense of qualified official immunity … Appellees were entitled to qualified immunity from the torts Appellants alleged against them.

Everson v. Leis

556 F.3d 484 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 20, 2009

, and (2) whether that right was clearly established.” … But under § 1983, “an arresting agent is entitled to qualified immunity if he or she could reasonably (even if erroneously) have believed that the arrest was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information

Gardner v. Rogers

224 Ga. App. 165 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Dec 20, 1996

“[T]he test for determining whether a defendant is protected from suit by the doctrine of qualified immunity is the objective reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law. … On a motion for summary judgment, if the applicable law was clearly established at the time the defendant acted, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law