Case law

Barker v. Goodrich

649 F.3d 428 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2011

On January 10, 2010, the magistrate judge granted summary judgment to all Defendants on the basis of qualified immunity, finding that the evidence established a constitutional violation, but the right at issue was not clearly … Accordingly, the constitutional right was clearly established and we REVERSE the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to all Defendants. III.

Hale v. Duvall

268 F. Supp. 3d 1161 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jul 27, 2017

P. 12(b)(6) based on the defense of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for, civil damages, .insofar as their-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Amato v. Office of Com'r of Securities

644 So. 2d 412 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 15, 1994

The difference between absolute immunity and qualified immunity is at absolute immunity is a complete bar against suit for damages arising from a judge's conduct, while qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects … Thus, the majority was clearly wrong in holding that Stansbury was entitled to qualified immunity from liability for his actions under LSA-R.S. 9:2798.1.

Gerhardt v. Mares

179 F. Supp. 3d 1006 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jan 20, 2016

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis. … WOODS DID NOT VIOLATE GER-HARDT’S CLEARLY ESTABLISHED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND IS THUS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.

Kirk Vester v. Daniel Hallock

864 F.3d 884 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 25, 2017

“We analyze qualified immunity in two steps: (1) whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged . . . make out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time … However, as the district court correctly noted, “‘Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if clearly established law’ can be defined at such a ‘high level of generality.’” See City & Cty. of S.F., Calif. v.

Macri v. Brower

District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 30, 2024

Finally, to overcome the defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the (7) constitutional right he contends was violated was clearly established. … Mims misapprehends exactly what law must be clearly established for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis.

Miller v. IDAHO STATE PATROL

150 Idaho 856 · Idaho Supreme Court · May 18, 2011

If a government official violates the claimant’s constitutional rights, qualified immunity “generally turns on the objective reasonableness of the action assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established … qualified-immunity inquiry instead.

Derrick Dutton v. Sheryl Hayes-Pupko

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 7, 2008

He asserted that Hayes-Pupko had to overcome his assertion of qualified immunity by proving that he (1) violated her clearly established rights and (2) acted unreasonably or in bad faith in doing so. … Discussion "A government official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Adams v. Lindsey

759 F. Supp. 795 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 14, 1991

A Clearly Established Seizure: In Anderson, supra, the Court explained that the relevant legal rule under which the qualified immunity issue is judged must be fact specific. … ’ entitlement to qualified immunity.

Moody v. Michigan Gaming Control Board

202 F. Supp. 3d 756 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 15, 2016

Therefore, because a reasonable officer would have believed his actions to be lawful, the rights at issue were not clearly established. Accordingly, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on these claims. C. … Finally, the Defendants argue that they are still entitled to qualified immunity because any violation did not involve a clearly established right that a reasonable person would have known. Dkt. No. 144 at 30-31 (Pg.

Caldwell v. LeFaver

928 F.2d 331 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 20, 1991

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, social workers are shielded from liability where their official conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … However, assuming such a right was clearly established in April 1987, we do not think that it vitiates the application of qualified immunity here.

Curtis Stewart v. Anne Precythe

91 F.4th 944 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 30, 2024

As relevant here, the district court denied the motion for qualified immunity, concluding that “Stewart has sufficiently alleged that Precythe violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the … Finding no allegation of a constitutional violation in the complaint, we need not consider whether the right was clearly established to conclude that Precythe is entitled to qualified immunity. Kulkay v.

Maldonado v. Marthenz

District Court, D. New Mexico · Jan 18, 2024

For federal habeas petitions brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), Strickland is clearly established federal law. … See Williams, 529 U.S. at 390 (“It is past question that the rule set forth in Strickland qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.’”).

Shedlock v. Department of Correction

442 Mass. 844 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Dec 8, 2004

Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991) (right must be clearly established “at the time the defendant acted” to overcome defense of qualified immunity). … However, the issue whether a statutory right is “clearly established” for purposes of overcoming qualified immunity is not a matter of counting up the number of decisions that have gone each way and treating as “clearly established

Kapinski v. City of Albuquerque

964 F.3d 900 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 6, 2020

In response, Detective Juarez moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, arguing that omitting the video footage did not transgress any clearly established law. … clearly established.”

Charles Mitchell v. Josh Shearrer

729 F.3d 1070 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 10, 2013

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known … Our second inquiry in considering the denial of qualified immunity is whether the right violated was clearly established. Whether the facts alleged support such a claim is a legal question for the court to decide.

Goodwin v. City of Fultondale

706 So. 2d 766 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Oct 17, 1997

immunity because their actions violated clearly established constitutional law. … Clearly, the above testimony, alone, is insufficient to establish that Officer Hamilton was *Page 770 acting pursuant to a well-established municipal policy or custom.

HARAPAT v. Vigil

676 F. Supp. 2d 1250 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Oct 13, 2009

Clearly Established Law. … Qualified immunity shields state officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Maras v. City of Brainerd

502 N.W.2d 69 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jun 22, 1993

Qualified Immunity Appellants claim that, even if the trustee’s claims are actionable under section 1983, Pfingsten is entitled to qualified immunity against those claims. … The threshold question is whether Peterson had a clearly established right which Pfingsten violated. We conclude that he did.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection v. Environmental Corp. of America

720 So. 2d 273 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 16, 1998

Qualified immunity shields government actors from personal liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established rights. See Vermette v. … In light of the Environmental Trust decision, we conclude that the individual defendants here are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established law.