Case law

Royal Crown Day Care LLC v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

746 F.3d 538 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 19, 2014

Defendants’ Qualified Immunity Defense “The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if they can establish either that (1) ‘a constitutional right was [not] violated’ or (2) ‘the right was [not] clearly established.’ … established.

Payne v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs.

Nebraska Court of Appeals · May 3, 2016

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil dam- ages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Qualified immunity consists of two inquiries: (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 of the

Randy Berkshire v. Debra Dahl

928 F.3d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 28, 2019

“In civil suits for money damages, government officials acting in their official capacity are entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts which do not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person … Page 23 Accordingly, Berkshire has produced sufficient evidence to show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, and he can survive Sergeant Nelson’s assertion of qualified immunity.

Leydens v. City of Des Moines

484 N.W.2d 594 · Supreme Court of Iowa · May 13, 1992

The Qualified Immunity Issue. … The defendants argue that under a qualified immunity claim only an “arguable” case of probable cause need be established.

Marglli Gallego v. Ivette Perez

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 11, 2024

DISCUSSION “Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time … “[I]f a plaintiff cannot show that the law at issue was clearly established under the first . . . method, that usually means qualified immunity is appropriate.” King v.

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.

Baer v. Leach

2014 DNH 214 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 24, 2015

Finally, Baer argues that Leach cannot be entitled to qualified immunity because the right to be free from arrests unsupported by probable cause is clearly established, and because a reasonable officer would have known … Determining whether a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes requires assessing the right “in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.” Mullenix v.

Peter Clayton McClendon v. City of Columbia, City of Columbia James R. Carney

305 F.3d 314 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 5, 2002

established law, and that he was not entitled to qualified immunity. … entitled to qualified immunity, finding that “the law on third-party entry into homes was [not] clearly established in April 1992.”

Penate v. Hanchett

944 F.3d 358 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 13, 2019

This appeal raises issues under the clearly established law prong of the qualified immunity test for supervisory state officials. … Hanchett does not separately argue that any ruling on our part on the clearly established prong of qualified immunity is "inextricably intertwined," and so he has waived such argument. See United States v.

McGreal v. AT & T Corp.

892 F. Supp. 2d 996 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 24, 2012

Qualified immunity can be grounds for a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal when the allegations of the complaint, taken as true, fail to allege the violation of a clearly established right. Landstrom v. Ill. … In Tamayo , the Seventh Circuit reversed a dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity because “[tjaking all facts pleaded in [the plaintiffs] complaint as true, the defendants violated a clearly established constitutional

Lareños En Defensa Del Patrimonio Historico, Inc. v. Municipality of Lares

882 F. Supp. 2d 286 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 6, 2012

immunity because a reasonable person in defendant’s position would have known that his actions violated clearly established law. … Whether the Plaintiffs’ Right was Clearly Established The second prong of the test for qualified immunity requires the Court to determine whether the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights were clearly established at the time

Sugg v. Albuquerque Public School District

128 N.M. 1 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 1999

Qualified immunity is subject to the collateral order doctrine which grants this Court appellate jurisdiction over suits barred by qualified immunity because qualified immunity is a final bar to suit and is therefore immediately … that the law was clearly established at the time when the alleged violation occurred.

Patsy Talley v. Dale Folwell

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 4, 2025

established, and thus defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.” … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the

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

(PC) Castellano v. Shrum

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 17, 2023

Legal Standard – Qualified Immunity 13 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 14 violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Ramirez–Palmer, 25 301 F.3d 1043, 1053 (9th Cir. 2002). 26 “For the second step in the qualified immunity analysis—whether the constitutional right 27 was clearly established at

Del A. v. Edwin Edwards, Individually and as Governor of the State of Louisiana

855 F.2d 1148 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 28, 1988

The district court denied the motion, holding that because the alleged illegal actions violated clearly established statutory and federal constitutional rights, qualified immunity was not available. … Id. *1151 Thus, the concept of “clearly established” had to be defined narrowly to serve the goals of qualified immunity.

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").

Kelly Martin v. Jordan Turner

73 F.4th 1007 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 21, 2023

Assuming without deciding that decisions of the Eighth Circuit may constitute clearly established law for qualified-immunity purposes, cf. City of -4- Escondido v. … Thus, Martin failed to show that clearly established law prohibited Deputy Turner’s conduct, and Deputy Turner is entitled to qualified immunity. III.

MAHAMED v. Anderson

612 F.3d 1084 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 30, 2010

Pedersen now appeals, claiming he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate Mahamed’s constitutional rights, and even if he did, the law was not clearly established at the time of the incident. … “We have jurisdiction over an order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity when the issue on appeal ‘turns on a legal determination [of] whether certain facts show a violation of clearly established law.’”

Jones v. Byrnes

585 F.3d 971 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 9, 2009

protection of qualified immunity. … The first question in the qualified immunity analysis is whether the plaintiff *976 has established a prima facie case of a constitutional violation.