Case law

Edwards v. Williams

170 F. Supp. 2d 727 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Oct 31, 2001

The defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity, as the complaint does not plead any alleged conduct that violated clearly and particularly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of … Because the plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to establish a constitutional violation, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 2. Was the Right Clearly Established?

Danese v. Asman

670 F. Supp. 729 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 16, 1987

The Court in Anderson also held that the mere assertion of a clearly established right, at least in the context of the fourth amendment, is insufficient to defeat the qualified immunity defense. … Qualified immunity is not applicable.

Czechorowski v. State

178 Vt. 524 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Mar 22, 2005

Supp. 2d 241, 249 (N.D.N.Y. 2001) (caseworker who relied on autistic child’s allegations of sexual abuse through FC did not violate dearly established standard and therefore was entitled to qualified immunity). … See Cook, 167 Vt. at 509 , 712 A.2d at 384 (analyzing official’s conduct in relation to clearly established law). ¶ 27.

Bonett v. Gualtieri

District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 29, 2022

denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity.” … was clearly established at the time of Cook’s alleged misconduct.

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.

Tyrone Hadley v. Keith Mihail Billiris and Montgomery County, Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · Jul 14, 2022

Billiris argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity because Hadley failed to cite any evidence showing that he intentionally struck Hadley, point to any clearly established law prohibiting an officer from chasing … To rebut the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must establish “that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law and that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the reasonableness

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.

Cavanaugh v. Woods Cross City

625 F.3d 661 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 3, 2010

Officer Davis moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, claiming that his actions did not violate the constitution and, if they did, that the law was not clearly established at the time. See Aplts. … Clearly Established Denial of qualified immunity is appropriate if the officer violated law that was “clearly established” at the time of his or her conduct. See, e.g., Perez v.

Cavanaugh v. Woods Cross City

718 F.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 12, 2013

immunity, which involves both whether there was a constitutional violation and whether the violation was clearly established. … the clearly established law found by the jury.”

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.

Jeffers v. Gomez

267 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 2001

The availability of qualified immunity in such a case naturally turns on whether it' was “clearly established law” that Motive Y was impermissible. … Determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity “requires a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established?

Kahle v. Leonard

477 F.3d 544 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 12, 2007

If the right was not clearly established, then the officer is protected by qualified immunity. 1. … Qualified Immunity 37 The second question in the qualified-immunity analysis requires us to consider whether the right that Malone allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Miller v. Wenerowicz

135 F. Supp. 3d 306 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2015

Once a defendant properly raises the defense of qualified- immunity, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of overcoming that defense by showing that the defendant violated the plaintiffs clearly established right. … But, as indicated above, in order to overcome the defense of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must cite to cases or other law that recognize a clearly established right of a prisoner to have his marriage request promptly approved

Eves v. LePage

927 F.3d 575 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 19, 2019

Qualified Immunity Analysis We move directly to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis and ask whether Governor LePage's alleged conduct violated "clearly established" federal … Convinced the defendants' actions, if proven, would violate clearly-established law, the district judge denied them qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Id.

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

Naylor v. State of LA

123 F.3d 855 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 9, 1997

First, the court determines whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law, to a given set of facts."14 Accordingly, this case fits squarely within that class of unappealable, fact-based qualified immunity orders contemplated by

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.

Bolanos v. Bain

696 So. 2d 478 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 2, 1997

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials (and the other burdens of litigation, including discovery) and from liability if their conduct violates no “clearly established … For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government