Case law

Kersavage v. University of Tennessee

731 F. Supp. 1327 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Dec 5, 1989

Moreover, the Court does not believe that qualified immunity applies to the individual defendants as a matter of law because the law of patent infringement is clearly established, relegating the application of such immunity … Reconsideration of Qualified Immunity The two individual defendants reassert their defense of qualified immunity, contending that under applicable precedent they could not have known that their conduct violated established

Feltman v. Europe

District Court, D. Colorado · Jan 18, 2022

Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the law was clearly established at the relevant time. Thomas v. Kaven, 765 F.3d 1183, 1194 (10th Cir. 2014). … According to the Tenth Circuit, “[i]n other words, ‘[g]eneral statements of the law can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes if they apply with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question.

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

John Moody v. Mich. Gaming Control Bd.

871 F.3d 420 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 11, 2017

Therefore, the right was clearly established. … We therefore reverse the district court’s grant of qualified immunity on the Fifth Amendment claim, and hold that the right articulated in Moody I was clearly established at the time of the violation. 2.

HIRA Educational Services Nort v. Frank Augustine

991 F.3d 180 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 15, 2021

B Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … When analyzing a qualified immunity claim we consider “(1) whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the official

Amir Brandy v. City of St. Louis, Missouri

75 F.4th 908 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 28, 2023

“To defeat qualified immunity, [Brandy] must prove that: ‘(1) the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to [him], demonstrate the deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) the right was clearly established … But just because the law is clearly established does not mean there was a constitutional violation.

Dagdagan v. City of Vallejo

682 F. Supp. 2d 1100 · District Court, E.D. California · Jan 7, 2010

A right is clearly established if a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. If the right is not clearly established, then the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendants’ Motion for Qualified Immunity Each Defendant argues even if his actions violated Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights, the defense of qualified immunity shields him from liability. 4 The qualified immunity analysis

Austin Webster v. Saint Louis County

135 F.4th 614 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 24, 2025

In the alternative, the district court concluded that Lemke was entitled to qualified immunity because her action did not violate a clearly established right. Webster also sued Lemke and St. … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established right of which a reasonable official would have known. Harlow v.

Tayvin Galanakis v. City of Newton, Iowa

134 F.4th 998 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 17, 2025

“An official is not entitled to qualified immunity if (1) the plaintiff demonstrates the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) that right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the official’s alleged wrongdoing.” … Independent of federal qualified immunity, Iowa officers enjoy statutory immunity where “[t]he right . . . secured by law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation, or at the time of the alleged deprivation

Allison v. Department Of Corrections

94 F.3d 494 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 30, 1996

See id. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 2156 (noting that a denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable so long as it turns on an issue of law; namely, "the purely legal issue [of] what law was 'clearly established' "). … immunity. 1 Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Atkinson v. Taylor

316 F.3d 257 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 21, 2003

We cannot conclude that appellants are entitled to qualified immunity. Atkinson has fulfilled Sauciers first prong for denying qualified immunity by alleging a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Milhouse clearly established that such retaliatory actions, if proven, are not legal. Thus, Saucier’s second prong is satisfied and appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Tangreti v. Bachmann

983 F.3d 609 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 28, 2020

Bachmann appealed from the denial of qualified immunity arguing that the scope of supervisory liability for deliberate- indifference claims under the Eighth Amendment is not clearly established after Ashcroft v. … is not clearly established.

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.

Division of Employment Security v. Board of Police Commissioners

864 F.3d 974 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 28, 2017

The Officers “Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability unless his conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … “Our prior cases have clearly established that use of [a] taser on a nonfleeing, nonviolent suspected misdemeanant [is] unreasonable.” Brossart v.

John Eugene Youmans v. M. J. Oschner

626 F.3d 557 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 16, 2010

We “review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.” … was not already clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Thornhill v. Breazeale

88 F. Supp. 2d 647 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Feb 10, 2000

Plaintiffs, therefore, have alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right and satisfied the first prong of the qualified immunity test. … “The second prong of the qualified immunity test is better understood as two separate inquiries: whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident; and, if so, whether

Diaz v. Cantu

123 F.4th 736 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 13, 2024

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528–30 (1985) (qualified immunity based on a lack of clearly established law); Plumhoff v. … established to strip an official of 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.

Walter Franklin, II v. Lucas Peterson

878 F.3d 631 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 26, 2017

DISCUSSION This is an appeal from the denial of qualified immunity as to Officers Peterson and Meath, a doctrine that “shields a government official from liability unless his conduct violates ’clearly established statutory … In an interlocutory appeal from an order denying qualified immunity, we have authority to decide the purely legal issue of whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff are a violation of clearly established law.

Marrero-Mendez v. Calixto-Rodriguez

830 F.3d 38 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 19, 2016

Clearly Established Law Appellants would still be entitled to qualified immunity if the right they violated was not "clearly established" at the time of their conduct. … establishes' law for the purposes of a qualified immunity analysis").