Case law

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Amy Hughes v. Andrew Kisela

841 F.3d 1081 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 28, 2016

The Supreme Court has explained that “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “In determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we consider (1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the officer

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.

Darryl Pernell Butler v. Hope Davis

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 21, 2019

immunity because Butler’s right was not clearly established. … See Glasscox, 903 F.3d at 1213 (explaining that, to defeat a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that “(1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the

Dustin Burnikel v. Michael Fong

886 F.3d 706 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 2, 2018

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless their conduct violates a clearly established right of which a reasonable official would have known. Harlow v. … We affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Fong and Wessels.

Montez v. Romer

32 F. Supp. 2d 1235 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jan 21, 1999

Further, defendants contend that the individual defendants sued in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct that either the … Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability under section 1983 where their actions do not violate clearly established statutory

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.

Kipp v. Saetre

454 N.W.2d 639 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · May 1, 1990

THE IMMUNITY OP APPELLANT COUNTY PROSECUTOR The absolute immunity of prosecutors was established by the United States Supreme Court in Imbler v. … of his qualified immunity.

Thrower v. Pennsylvania

873 F. Supp. 2d 651 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 31, 2012

Plaintiff contends that qualified immunity does not apply because Decedent’s rights were clearly established at the time the Individual Defendants acted, even if it was uncertain at that time whether their actions would subject … Instantly, Defendants’ contention that it was not clearly established law that certain portions of the Medicaid Act create individually enforceable rights misses the qualified immunity mark.