Case law

Munroe v. City of Austin

300 F. Supp. 3d 915 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Mar 12, 2018

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that (1) the official violated a constitutional right, and (2) the constitutional right at issue was clearly established. *923 Saucier v. … Assuming, without deciding, that deploying his taser was an excessive use of force, Murphy is entitled to qualified immunity because doing so did not violate clearly established law.

Wright v. City of Philadelphia

409 F.3d 595 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 6, 2005

violated was clearly established. … right was clearly established.”

United States v. Jeffrey Lynn Franklin

235 F.3d 1165 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 20, 2000

establish” that the predicate conviction qualified under § 924(e). … While in some cases a sentencing court properly might cumulate documentation of prior criminal convictions to find that such documentation “clearly establishes” a prior criminal conviction, in the context of an enhancement

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.

Fancher v. Barrientos

723 F.3d 1191 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 12, 2013

Barrientos asserts he is entitled to qualified immunity because his use of deadly force was objectively reasonable and did not violate clearly established law. … Accordingly, the district court, in evaluating Barrientos’s assertion of qualified immunity, did not err in concluding Barrientos violated clearly established law when he fired shots two through seven.

Earles v. Perkins

788 N.E.2d 1260 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 29, 2003

Qualified Immunity Government officials are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … have believed the arrest to be lawful, in light of the clearly-established law and the information that the arresting officer possessed"). 9 The Appellants also assert that Earles and Jones are entitled to qualified immunity

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Aug 2, 2002

The test for the applicability of qualified immunity turns upon the "objective legal reasonableness of the action," assessed in light of legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time the action was taken. … The immunity is" qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Id. ; Robinson v.

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.

Angelo Clark v. Robert Coupe

55 F.4th 167 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 28, 2022

immunity grounds, finding Clark failed to allege the violation of a clearly established right. … Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Hynson v. City of Chester

827 F.2d 932 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 2, 1987

In reviewing the denial of a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity, our determination is limited to the purely legal question of whether the facts alleged support a violation of clearly established law: An appellate court … clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.

Pinder v. Skero

375 F. Supp. 3d 725 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 21, 2019

"The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The Fifth Circuit has explained the "clearly established" prong as follows: Qualified immunity should not be denied unless the law is clear in the more particularized sense that reasonable officials should be "on notice that

Odhuno v. Reed's Cove Health & Rehab., LLC

355 F. Supp. 3d 1026 · District Court, D. Kansas · Dec 14, 2018

Thus, Mallen does not support a clearly established constitutional right that defeats Rose and Sunderraj's claims of qualified immunity. … The Court next examines the second prong of qualified immunity-whether the law was clearly established.

Myers v. City of Hartford

84 Conn. App. 395 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Aug 10, 2004

for qualified governmental immunity, *398 rather than under § 52-557n (a) (2), on which the court relied in directing a verdict for the defendants. … Section 7-465 clearly states that governmental immunity will *401 not be allowed as a defense in an indemnification claim, except that the municipality will not be hable for the wilful and wanton acts of its employees.

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.

City of McGregor v. Janett

480 N.W.2d 576 · Court of Appeals of Iowa · Nov 26, 1991

Finally, they asserted that they were entitled to qualified immunity. … The test for qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage of a proceeding is an objective one: “to be clearly established, ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand

Raymond Barton v. Sheldon Neeley

114 F.4th 581 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 27, 2024

If the public-official defendant did not violate a constitutional right, or if he did but the right was not clearly established at the time of the violation, then the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … Therefore, the court denied qualified immunity because it was “clearly established that the First Amendment protect[s] a citizen’s decision both as to what to say and  No. 23-2089 Barton v.

Rodriguez v. Passinault

637 F.3d 675 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 25, 2011

Garner[, 471 U.S. 1 (1985),] provides a ‘clearly established’ right that fulfills the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.” Id. at 347. … Thus, Pierce is entitled to qualified immunity.” Id. at 878.

Intervarsity Christian Fellows v. University of Iowa

5 F.4th 855 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 16, 2021

immunity because the law was not clearly established. … As for qualified immunity, the court denied the individual defendants qualified immunity on the free speech and association claims, finding that the law was clearly established that the University could not discriminate based

Jones v. Buckner

963 F. Supp. 2d 1267 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Aug 9, 2013

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson v. … However, the Eleventh Circuit has “held time and again that clearly established general principles of law will seldom if ever suffice to strip a defendant of qualified immunity.” Harbert Intern., Inc. v.

Smith v. Lomax

45 F.3d 402 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 22, 1995

Then we ask, on the issue of qualified immunity, whether precedent clearly established that such conduct violated the Equal Protection Clause. … her of a clearly established property right.