Case law

Carswell v. Camp

54 F.4th 307 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 30, 2022

But Carswell says this was “the opposite of a refusal or failure to rule” because the “district court clearly indicated it would timely address Individual Defendants’ qualified immunity defense.” … No. 21-10171 established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

Anne Powers v. John T. Lightner, D/B/A Lightner Auto Sales, Third-Party v. Barry Jones and Bruce White, Third-Party

752 F.2d 1251 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 16, 1985

Accordingly, the Court dropped the subjective component and announced that qualified immunity is to be judged by a simple objective standard: whether the acts of the official violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional … But when clearly established rights are involved, qualified immunity does not protect against trial: [W]e see no substantial basis for holding ... that executive officers generally may with impunity discharge their duties

Estate of Aaron Bruce Cadman v. Dennis, et al.

2018 DNH 018 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jan 29, 2018

Police officers “are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 5 The court focuses on the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis because it is dispositive of the excessive force claim. See Pearson v.

Unwin v. Campbell

863 F.2d 124 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 9, 1988

A court must look to the “objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law,” to determine whether the doctrine of qualified immunity applies. Id. … established law and are entitled to qualified immunity.

Brown v. Fortner

518 F.3d 552 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 4, 2008

The court further held that the right Fortner and Scott allegedly violated was clearly established and therefore concluded that Fortner and Scott were not entitled to qualified immunity. … Was the Right Violated Clearly Established? The second question in considering the denial of qualified immunity is whether the right violated was clearly established.

Mabry ex rel. T.M. v. Lee County

100 F. Supp. 3d 568 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Mar 30, 2015

In order to overcome a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff is required to demonstrate “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time … Officer Fant is accordingly entitled to qualified immunity.

Michael Fenwick v. United States

778 F.3d 133 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 13, 2015

Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the deputies violated no clearly established law and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. *135 I. … Fenwick’s clearly established constitutional rights.” Id. at 225. On appeal, the deputies challenge the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment, renewing their assertion of qualified immunity.

Bryheim Jamar Baskin v. Rafael Martinez (081982) (Camden County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 9, 2020

If the right at issue is not clearly established, then the officer alleged to have violated that right will be entitled to qualified immunity. … Many Section 1983 cases rise or fall on the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Nov 3, 2005

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an individual is immune from suit if he undertook the actions complained of in good faith in the performance of his duties and the acts do not violate any clearly established constitutional … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not apply where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Id. ; Robinson v.

David Roberts v. City of Omaha

723 F.3d 966 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 31, 2013

There is no clearly established law indicating Roberts’s suggested rights applied in the circumstances of this case. The district court should have granted the officers qualified immunity on these claims. … City of Minneapolis, 596 F.3d 465, 482 (8th Cir. 2010) (explaining under “qualified immunity, a county employee may be held personally liable for a constitutional violation only if his own conduct violated a clearly established

Kovacic v. Cuyahoga County Department of Children & Family Services

724 F.3d 687 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 31, 2013

rights were not clearly established as of March 26, 2002. … Clearly Established Rights We now turn to whether the law was clearly established on March 26, 2002, that a social worker could not seize children from their home without a warrant, exigent circumstances, or another recognized

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.

Ensey v. Culhane

727 A.2d 687 · Supreme Court of Rhode Island · Mar 30, 1999

Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 , 112 S.Ct. 534 , 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991), the Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, made the following observation regarding qualified immunity: “Our cases establish that qualified immunity shields … Thus, the determination of qualified immunity on summary judgment has clearly been held to be appropriate.

Manis v. Lawson

585 F.3d 839 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 16, 2009

Alternatively, even if Zemlik used excessive force, he is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct was not objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established law at the time of his actions … Therefore, Zemlik’s actions were objectively reasonable under clearly established law, and he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Conde v. Colorado State Department of Personnel

18 Brief Times Rptr. 451 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 1994

The plaintiffs complaint must adequately state a claim of violation of clearly established law; if not, a defendant pleading qualified immunity will be entitled to dismissal before discovery commences. Mitchell v. … Once the defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff assumes the burden of identifying both the clearly established law that the government official is alleged to have violated and the conduct that violated

Strange v. Spokane County

171 Wash. App. 585 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 30, 2012

The second question, specific to qualified immunity, is whether the constitutional right was clearly established given the specific context of the case before the court. … Qualified Immunity ¶20 Mr.

Roger Miller Music, Inc., and Mary A. Miller, Plaintiffs-Appellants/cross-Appellees v. Sony/atv Publishing, Llc, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant

477 F.3d 383 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 13, 2007

Rather, a motion under Rule 59(e) “must either clearly establish a manifest error of law or must present newly discovered evidence.” World Univ., Inc., 978 F.2d at 16 ; FDIC v. … Winchester-Conant Prop., Inc., 322 F.3d 26, 40 (1st Cir.2003) (“Uses of the copyrighted work that stay within the scope of a nonexclusive license are immunized from infringement suits.”).

Bevill v. Fletcher

26 F.4th 270 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 11, 2022

“Once a defendant raises a qualified-immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was ‘clearly established’ at the … Whatever one might think about qualified immunity, I think we’re duty bound to say the law is not clearly established when it takes a full-page flow chart to hold otherwise.

Scott v. Britton

16 S.W.3d 173 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Apr 13, 2000

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields an official performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages under section 1983, provided the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … After a governmental official asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that the defendant’s conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Osborne v. Seymour

164 Wash. App. 820 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 9, 2011

Qualified Immunity ¶41 “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials who perform discretionary functions are usually shielded from liability for civil damages if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established … For qualified immunity purposes, “clearly established” means: “[T]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.