Case law

Jennings v. Jones

499 F.3d 2 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 17, 2007

Prong Two: Whether the Law Was Clearly Established The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis asks “whether the constitutional right ... was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the incident such that it would ‘be … violated that clearly established constitutional right.”

Royal Crown Day Care LLC v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

746 F.3d 538 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 19, 2014

Defendants’ Qualified Immunity Defense “The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if they can establish either that (1) ‘a constitutional right was [not] violated’ or (2) ‘the right was [not] clearly established.’ … established.

Williams v. Pate

463 S.W.3d 734 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 20, 2015

Appellees filed an answer asserting the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … of qualified immunity.

Robert Andrews v. Hickman County, Tennessee

700 F.3d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 3, 2012

Thus, qualified immunity applies “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 (citing Anderson v. … The next step in the qualified immunity analysis requires us to ask whether the right was clearly established at the time of the officer’s conduct.

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

Nelson v. Town of St. Johnsbury, LaMotte, Oddy, Ruggles, Rust, Timson and Town of St. Johnsbury

198 Vt. 277 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jan 16, 2015

The Town argues that its selectboard members are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established right. … We therefore conclude that the law was not clearly established and the selectboard is entitled to qualified immunity. On this point, we ¿ffirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.

Williams v. Austen

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 16, 2021

Dkt. 20 at 13-15. 10 The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil 11 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Courts may consider these two questions in either order, and a favorable determination for 15 the defendant on either establishes qualified immunity.

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.

Lopez v. Robinson

914 F.2d 486 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 17, 1990

the qualified immunity inquiry. … The prison officials have qualified immunity from both claims.

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.

Norton v. Hall

834 A.2d 928 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 30, 2003

of qualified immunity. … Even if the Nortons had produced facts sufficient to support a constitutional claim, Hall would be entitled to qualified immunity because, given the information she possessed, her conduct “does not violate clearly established

Hereford v. Warren

536 F.3d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 7, 2008

The district court granted ha-beas relief after concluding that the state court’s holding represented an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C … That conclusion, however, misapprehends controlling law for AEDPA purposes; the language found in Minsky is not a Supreme Court holding that reflects clearly established federal law.

Hoefling v. City of Miami

876 F. Supp. 2d 1321 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 13, 2012

“Unless 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.” Behrens v. … Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing that Officer Roque and Sergeant Gonzalez are not entitled to qualified immunity because he has not shown that Defendants violated his “clearly established” rights.

Jenkins v. University of Minnesota

838 F.3d 938 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 3, 2016

Qualified Immunity “‘Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for damages so long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Where, as here, a defendant fails to establish that he did not violate a right or that the right in question was not clearly established, then he is not entitled to qualified immunity, regardless of whether he acted under

Davis v. Clifford

825 F.3d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 13, 2016

Qualified immunity “shields public officials from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Estate of Booker, 745 F.3d at 411 (quotation omitted). … Qualified immunity having been claimed, “the plaintiff carries a two-part burden to show: (1) that the defendant’s actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right, and, if so, (2) that the right was clearly

Liebenstein v. Crowe

826 F. Supp. 1174 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Sep 4, 1992

Once a public official has raised the defense of qualified immunity,, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of the clearly established right that he claims was violated. Abel v. … The use of expert testimony is particularly ill-suited to defeat qualified immunity, especially when there is no clearly established law that the defendants violated.

Don Karns v. Kathleen Shanahan

879 F.3d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 11, 2018

However, as in Fields itself, this right was not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … Accordingly, although the right identified by Karns and Parker is now clearly established in this Circuit, our qualified immunity analysis in this case remains unchanged. See Brosseau v.

Gerald Johnson v. Mike Moody

903 F.3d 766 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 10, 2018

To defeat a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must put forth facts showing that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and that the right was clearly established at the … Callahan expressly authorized, that Moody and Mathis were entitled to qualified immunity from the Count I claims, not simply because the law was not clearly established, but because their conduct in investigating did not

Khansari v. City of Houston

14 F. Supp. 3d 842 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 9, 2014

’s Fourth Amendment rights, the court turns directly to the second analytical step of the qualified immunity analysis: whether that right was clearly established when the actions at issue occurred. … January 26, 2010), plaintiffs acknowledge that [f]or the purposes of the qualified immunity analysis, “ ‘clearly established’ means that the ‘contours of the right’ are ‘sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would

Rankel v. County of Westchester

135 A.D.3d 731 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 13, 2016

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity under 42 USC § 1983 for discretionary functions if either (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable … for them to believe that their acts did not violate clearly established rights (see Doe ex rel.