Case law

Whiting v. Tunica County

222 F. Supp. 2d 809 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jul 19, 2002

— was also clearly established. … The Court notes, under the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, that the contours of this constitutional violation for qualified immunity purposes were clearly established at the relevant time.

Lum v. Koles

314 P.3d 546 · Alaska Supreme Court · Dec 13, 2013

established’ . . . .”) … The officers’ conduct was reasonable and certainly does not violate clearly established law, unlike that of the officers in Headwaters Forest Defense v.

Romero v. Bexar County

993 F. Supp. 2d 658 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Jan 9, 2014

Government officials performing discretionary functions are protected from civil liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity if their conduct violates no “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Qualified immunity is not only a defense to liability but also a immunity from suit. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 223 , 129 S.Ct. 808 .

City of Beverly Hills v. Guevara

911 S.W.2d 901 · Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco) · Dec 13, 1995

The Court’s definition of good faith is “derived substantially” from the federal qualified immunity law in “section 1983 claims”: Although the cases sometimes refer to the doctrine of qualified “good faith” immunity, the … “[W]e look to whether a reasonable official could have believed his or her conduct to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information possessed by the official at the time the conduct occurred.”

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.

Gausvik v. Abbey

126 Wash. App. 868 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 25, 2005

Qualified Immunity ¶66 A DSHS employee cannot be held personally liable for damages under a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action unless his conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Robinson v. … After a defendant asserts the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must show a clearly established constitutional right existed that the defendant violated.

Claudio v. United States

836 F. Supp. 1219 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 2, 1993

Moreover, even if the asserted right is “clearly established,” the qualified immunity defense still protects the official if “he neither knew nor should have known of the relevant legal standard.” … Rights Clearly Established The First and Fifth Amendment rights to free speech, due process and equal protection certainly are clearly established.

Kenneth Ratliff v. Aransas County, Texas

948 F.3d 281 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 15, 2020

He offered the testimony because of a failing memory and to rebut the deputies’ qualified immunity defense in this § 1983 case. … The second “asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at 656.

Johnson v. Harris

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

“When a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the court must dismiss the action unless the plaintiff shows that (1) the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established … support for the notion that the law is clearly established.”).6 Accordingly, Ms. Johnson’s Fourth Amendment claim against Ms. Shelton-Denley is barred by qualified immunity.7 B.

Cunningham v. Gates

229 F.3d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 31, 2000

In order to decide the qualified immunity claims, we must determine 1) whether non-shooting officers are entitled to qualified immunity because “jamming” does not violate clearly established law, 2) whether council members … are entitled to qualified immunity because a policy of indemnifying officers against punitive damages does not violate clearly established law, and 3) whether City attorneys are entitled to qualified immunity because recommending

Hoefling v. City of Miami

17 F. Supp. 3d 1227 · District Court, S.D. Florida · May 6, 2014

“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Behrens v. … On a motion to dismiss, “[t]o evaluate claims of qualified immunity, the Court considers whether (1) the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at

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.

City of Dallas v. Half Price Books, Records, Magazines, Inc.

883 S.W.2d 374 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Aug 18, 1994

If a police officer is immune from tort liability under the qualified immunity doctrine, the city is also immune. City of Houston v. Newsom, 858 S.W.2d 14, 19 (Tex.App. … My actions were consistent with State law and departmental regulations, and I did not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known.

Andrea Miller v. Woodston Maddox

866 F.3d 386 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 3, 2017

Lastly, we address Maddox’s argument that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions unless (1) the plaintiff has established a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right at issue was clearly established at time of the incident

Shadmani v. Barnes

District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 11, 2024

that they violated a clearly established constitutional right. … the qualified immunity privilege, even in the absence of case law.

Safar v. Tingle

178 F. Supp. 3d 338 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 4, 2016

As the Fourth Circuit has explained, “to escape dismissal of a complaint on qualified immunity grounds, a plaintiff must (1) allege a violation of a right (2) that is clearly established at the time of the violation.” … This is a flaw in the qualified immunity doctrine; because cases resolved on the basis of qualified immunity — or, as here, on the basis of absolute immunity— are often resolved without reaching the merits, no clearly established

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

Rachel v. City of Mobile

112 F. Supp. 3d 1263 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Jun 5, 2015

Qualified Immunity. … Moreover, “[t]he law cannot be .established by dieta[, which] is particularly unhelpful in qualified immunity cases where we seek to identify clearly established law.” Santamorena v.

McCormick v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs

28 Kan. App. 2d 744 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Mar 30, 2001

light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken. … The holding in Kalina leaves no doubt it was clearly established. Thereafter, a prosecutor is to be charged with knowledge that such an act was unreasonable. Long, therefore, is not entitled to qualified immunity.

William Meyers, Sr. v. Baltimore County, Maryland

713 F.3d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 1, 2013

Ryan’s clearly established constitutional rights. … We repeatedly have held that it is not required that a right violated already have been recognized by a court in a specific context before such right may be held "clearly established" for purposes of qualified immunity.