Case law

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.

William Manery v. Jason Lee

124 F.4th 1073 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 7, 2025

An official will be protected by qualified immunity “un- less the plaintiff shows: ‘(1) that the official violated a statu- tory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the … It was not clearly established that Lieutenant Lee’s use of deadly force was unreasonable, and, accordingly, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Morgan v. Morgensen

465 F.3d 1041 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 6, 2006

Whether the Constitutional Right was Clearly Established [7] We proceed to the second qualified immunity inquiry: whether that right was clearly established. … A prison official is not entitled to qualified immunity if the law governing his conduct was clearly established such that a reasonable prison official would know that his conduct was unlawful.

Gasparre v. City of St. Paul

501 N.W.2d 683 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jun 22, 1993

State 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.” Harlow v. … Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before commencement of discovery. Mitchell v.

Emerson v. City of New York

740 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 19, 2010

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity “when they perform discretionary functions if either (1) their conduct did not violate clearly-established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or ( … If the right is not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, then government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity. See Safford Unified School District v.

DANIELS v. COOKE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 12, 2022

In other words, qualified immunity is appropriate when the clearly established law, as applied to the facts, "would have left objectively reasonable officials in a state of uncertainty." Horshaw v. … Under some "extraordinary circumstances," an official may be entitled to qualified immunity based on reasonable ignorance of clearly established law governing the official's conduct. Harlow v.

Hicks v. Leffler

119 Ohio App. 3d 424 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 1997

First, with regard to immunity for a federal claim, in order to defeat a defendant’s motion for summary judgment under a qualified immunity defense, a “plaintiff must: 1) identify a clearly established right alleged to have … Taken together, Hunter and Harlow stand for the proposition that, where the law has been clearly established, a mistaken decision made in extraordinary circumstances may not lead to loss of immunity.

JL ex rel. Thompson v. New Mexico Department of Health

169 F. Supp. 3d 1194 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 4, 2016

Although qualified immunity is most often raised at the summary judgment stage, the Tenth Circuit has recognized the propriety of raising a qualified immunity defense in a motion to dismiss. … Defendants argue that they are shielded by qualified immunity from Plaintiffs’ substantive due process claims because the rights that Plaintiffs assert were not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct that

Acoff v. Abston

762 F.2d 1543 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 12, 1985

Abston invokes a qualified immunity from suit due to his “good faith” reliance on a City policy that was not clearly unconstitutional at the time of the shooting; the judgment in favor of all defendants could stand if this … The retroactive effect of Garner does not necessarily resolve the related issue of Officer Abston’s qualified immunity.

VAN VALEN v. LANIGAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 21, 2020

established law, Lanigan would be entitled to qualified immunity. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (“[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Rosenthal v. County of Madison

339 Mont. 419 · Montana Supreme Court · Oct 23, 2007

“The doctrine of qualified immunity operates to shield government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Moreover, even if we were to speculate with Rosenthal that new evidence would establish that Zenker’s conduct was entitled to qualified immunity rather than absolute immunity, he does not show how he will pierce the qualified

Henderson v. Lewis

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 10, 2019

clearly established statutory or 23 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified 25 immunity, courts must consider (1) whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right, 26 and (2) whether that right was “clearly established

Parker v. LeBlanc

73 F.4th 400 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 17, 2023

Qualified immunity involves answering two questions: (1) “whether the officer violated a constitutional right,” and (2) “whether the ‘right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of [the] alleged misconduct. … Unlike the plaintiffs in Joseph, Parker identified cases in his district court briefing, as well as in his briefing to this court, that addressed the clearly-established-law prong of the qualified immunity analysis

Angela Johnson v. H.S. Caudill

475 F.3d 645 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 2, 2007

Because a reasonable official in Sheriff Caudill’s position would not have considered the termination to violate Johnson’s clearly established constitutional rights, however, we find Sheriff Caudill entitled to qualified … “Absent clearly established law that proscribe[s] [an official’s] specific conduct, [he] should not be subjected to suit.” Id.

Tonya Weinberg Gilmore v. Pam Hodges

738 F.3d 266 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 20, 2013

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages unless they violate a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time the alleged violation took place. … The Plaintiffs’ reliance on unpublished case law drawn from other circuits and from the district courts is unavailing, because only binding precedent can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes.

Wilkins v. Palomino

District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 21, 2021

district court to rebut qualified immunity.”); Rojas v. … Absent this clearly established law, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Douglas W. Schwenk v. James Hartford Steve Sinclair Robert Mitchell,opinion

204 F.3d 1187 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 29, 2000

This satisfies the first part of the “analytical framework” for determining qualified immunity established in Siegert . … Was the Law Clearly Established?

Vincent v. State Through Dept. of Corrections

468 So. 2d 1329 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 1985

Skinner examined an action brought pursuant to U.S.C. 42 § 1983, which permits government officials to raise a qualified immunity defense. … A plaintiff bringing forth a "1983 action" seeking damages for deprivation of statutory rights may overcome a defendant official's qualified immunity only by showing those rights were clearly established at the time of the

Morgan v. Bubar

115 Conn. App. 603 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jul 14, 2009

The defendants argue that Carini and Castronova are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … “When [a motion for summary judgment] is based on assertion of qualified immunity, the first issue is whether a clearly established right is at stake. ...