Case law

Wayne Thomas Ahlers and Nina Ahlers v. Ronald J. Schebil

188 F.3d 365 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 30, 1999

Qualified Immunity Next, Plaintiffs contend on appeal that, regardless of this panel’s conclusions as to whether Wayne Ahlers’s arrest was supported by probable cause, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because … There are really two separate inquiries here: whether the Washtenaw County Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and whether Parsons is entitled to qualified immunity.

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

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

TATTNALL COUNTY Et Al. v. ARMSTRONG

333 Ga. App. 46 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jul 13, 2015

IX establishes a different type of immunity, known as official or qualified immunity when an officer or an employee of the state is sued in his individual capacity. 6 Banks v. Happoldt, 271 Ga. … Armstrong clearly had the burden to establish waiver. As we have previously explained, “[sovereign immunity is not an affirmative defense that must be established by the party seeking its protection.

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.

Zulema Longoria v. San Benito Indep Con Sch Dist

942 F.3d 258 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 4, 2019

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … We therefore turn to the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis and find that, regardless of whether M.L.’s rights were violated, the right at issue was not clearly established. See Davis v.

Walter Melton v. David Abston

841 F.3d 1207 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 18, 2016

Qualified Immunity 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 … Sullivan is not entitled to qualified immunity. See Mercado v.

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center of Dallas v. Margulis

88 S.W.3d 641 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 31, 1999

Fain, and Kern Wildenthal, M.D., appellants, contend the trial court erred in denying their motion for partial summary judgment on the defense of qualified immunity. … Appellants moved for partial summary judgment on the section 1983 claims, asserting that Margulis did not plead with specificity enough facts to overcome their assertion of qualified immunity.

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.

Tuskan v. Jackson County

134 F. Supp. 3d 1041 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Sep 25, 2015

Legal Standard The defense of qualified immunity shields governmental officials from civil liability for damages based upon the performance of discretionary functions if the officials’ actions did not violate clearly established … Thornton is Entitled to Qualified Immunity With Respect to Tuskan’s False Arrest Claim Tuskan’s claim for false arrest derives from his clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures of his

Rousselo v. Starling

128 N.C. App. 439 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 3, 1998

We agree and conclude that under the doctrine of qualified immunity Trooper Starling was immune from suit because a reasonable person in his position would not have known that his actions violated a clearly established right … Police officers sued under section 1983 are not protected by qualified immunity if the officers’ conduct violated “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ”

Babinski v. Sosnowsky

79 F.4th 515 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 21, 2023

To defeat qualified immunity, Babinski must satisfy the clearly established prong of the analysis. … The district court denied the university and its officials qualified immunity. Id. A panel of this court reversed, explaining that “the ‘sine qua non of the clearly- established inquiry is “fair warning.”’”

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.

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

Swann v. City of Dallas

922 F. Supp. 1184 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 12, 1996

Public officials, however, are not shielded by qualified immunity if their conduct violates clearly-established constitutional rights, if a reasonable person would have known that such conduct was unconstitutional. … Finally, to satisfy the third part of the qualified immunity test, the plaintiff must establish that the official’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in fight of the legal rules clearly established at the time the actions

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.

Estate of Williams v. Indiana State Police Department

797 F.3d 468 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 13, 2015

‘clearly established.’” … “Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.” Id. at 1776.

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.