Case law

Dana Ault v. Leslie Speicher

634 F.3d 942 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 3, 2011

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects govern- ment officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not clearly violate established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … On a qualified immunity claim the court confronts two questions: (1) whether the plain- tiff’s allegations make out a deprivation of a constitu- tional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly estab- lished at the time

Mason-Funk v. City of Neenah

895 F.3d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 10, 2018

Even if the officers had used unreasonable force, the court concluded they were entitled to qualified immunity because the officers did not violate a clearly established right. Id. at 1016-22 . … "Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Kisela v.

Duncan v. City of Sandy Springs

District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 14, 2020

was clearly established when the violation occurred. … To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that a defendant violated clearly established law. See Johnson v. Conway, 688 F. App’x 700, 706 (11th Cir. 2017).

Davis v. Clifford

825 F.3d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 13, 2016

Qualified immunity “shields public officials from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Estate of Booker, 745 F.3d at 411 (quotation omitted). … Qualified immunity having been claimed, “the plaintiff carries a two-part burden to show: (1) that the defendant’s actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right, and, if so, (2) that the right was clearly

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.

Kyle v. Civil Service Com'n

588 So. 2d 1154 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jan 3, 1992

Economou, 438 U.S. 478 , 98 S.Ct. 2894 , 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978). [4] However, we need not decide whether absolute immunity applies to the present factual situation since we find that the doctrine of qualified immunity is clearly … Considering the above cited principles, we now review the pleadings in this matter to determine whether the plaintiff has set forth material facts establishing that the defendants violated a clearly established right of which

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

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

Cottone v. Jenne

326 F.3d 1352 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 11, 2003

[u]nless 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.” Id. … The Supreme Court has established a two-part test to determine the applicability of qualified immunity.

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."

Scott v. Fischer

616 F.3d 100 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 11, 2010

“clearly established” in the qualified immunity context, which governs the conduct of government officials who are likely neither lawyers nor legal scholars. … established when they took place and the defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

Farry v. City of Pawtucket

725 F. Supp. 2d 286 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Apr 13, 2010

Where the law is not sufficiently clear to provide such warning to an officer that he or she is violating plaintiffs rights, qualified immunity is appropriate; however, if the law is clearly established, the Court then considers … Mattox, 127 F.3d 1416 (11th Cir.1997) to hold that for purposes of qualified immunity analysis, the law was clearly established “that it was unconstitutional for police offi *302 cers to increase their use of physical force

Benjamin v. Washington State Bar Ass'n

138 Wash. 2d 506 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1999

Benjamin’s termination the law was not clearly established that the termination constituted state action, nor was the law clearly established that Dr. … Consequently, we need not address the second step in qualified immunity analysis—determining whether *528 the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time the dispute arose.

Bass v. Coughlin

800 F. Supp. 1066 · District Court, N.D. New York · Dec 11, 1991

“Once qualified immunity is pleaded, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed unless defendant’s alleged conduct, when committed, violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … While the right to a kosher diet was “clearly established” during the time in question, the magistrate judge correctly concluded that summary judgment was not proper on the qualified immunity question.