Case law

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

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

Russell v. Lazar

300 F. Supp. 2d 716 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jan 27, 2004

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants argue that even if the complaint states claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

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.

Oberist Lee Saunders v. George C. Duke

766 F.3d 1262 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 8, 2014

Under this doctrine, “courts may not award damages against a government official in his personal capacity unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and the right was ‘clearly established’ at the … Saunders] to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate.” Lee, 284 F.3d at 1194. With these principles in mind, we turn to the qualified immunity analysis.

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.

Smith v. Peyman

93 F. Supp. 3d 738 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Mar 18, 2015

clearly established constitutional law. … The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 , 122 S.Ct. 2508 , 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002).

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

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

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

Altovese Williams v. City of Burlington, Iowa

27 F.4th 1346 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 9, 2022

Chiprez appeals the denial of qualified immunity. This court affirms. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

DONALD M v. Matava

668 F. Supp. 703 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 30, 1987

QUALIFIED AND ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY 1. … to qualified immunity.

Ingram v. Cooper

163 F. Supp. 3d 1133 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 18, 2016

and the law supporting plaintiffs claims was. not clearly established. … For the purpose of qualified immunity, it is clearly established that discrimination against a person because of his or her race would be a clearly established violation of the person’s constitutional *1140 rights.