Case law

Landstrom v. Illinois Department Of Children And Family Services

892 F.2d 670 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 9, 1990

Id. at 908 . 26 Contrary to plaintiffs' contentions, Darryl H. does not supply the particularized, clearly established right required for individual defendants to lose their qualified immunity. … immunity because the conduct alleged does not violate any clearly established first amendment rights.

Barbara Hager v. Arkansas Dept. of Health

735 F.3d 1009 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 14, 2013

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a court must dismiss a complaint against a government official in his individual capacity that fails to state a claim for violation of “clearly established statutory or constitutional … See also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 685; Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526 (“Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before

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.

Scallion v. Parish of Red River

251 F. App'x 853 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 15, 2007

Scallion fails to identify a clearly-established constitutional right violated by Myers. See id. … (first step in qualified-immunity analysis is identifying a clearly-established constitutional right that has been violated); Malley v.

Tofano v. Reidel

61 F. Supp. 2d 289 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 11, 1999

To this effect, government officials, performing discretionary functions, are afforded qualified immunity from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Having found the conduct of the officers to be objectively reasonable, plaintiff has not alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. Cf.

Whiting v. Kirk

768 F. Supp. 26 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Jun 21, 1991

The prevailing standard for qualified immunity is that “[government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The first step, then, in deciding the qualified immunity issue is to establish the right that was violated.

Terry Cravener v. Mike Shuster

885 F.3d 1135 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 27, 2018

Government officials, like the deputies here, are entitled to qualified immunity “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable official would have known … Determining qualified immunity, this court considers a “two-step inquiry: (1) whether the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established

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.

Zahra v. Town Of Southold

48 F.3d 674 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 21, 1995

See Natale, 927 F.2d at 105 ("The threshold issue in determining the applicability of [the] qualified immunity defense is whether [the plaintiffs] had a 'clearly established right' to the permits at issue."); see also Amsden … th[at] 'clearly established' right[ ]."

Huber v. North Carolina State University

163 N.C. App. 638 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 20, 2004

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials per *645 forming discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … We must therefore determine whether Plaintiff’s right to privacy was clearly established at the time.

Davdrin Goffin v. Robbie Ashcraft

977 F.3d 687 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 15, 2020

Officer Ashcraft is entitled to qualified immunity if her conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Police officers are not entitled to qualified immunity if “(1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.”

Raheem Jacobs v. Cumberland County

8 F.4th 187 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 10, 2021

The officers moved for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. … Our qualified-immunity analysis consists of two questions: (1) whether this set of facts shows Williams violating a constitutional right, and (2) “whether the right was clearly established, such that ‘it would [have been]

Chad J. Alvarado v. Jon E. Litscher, Secretary, Jane Gamble, B. McCreedy

267 F.3d 648 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 28, 2001

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary functions so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To overcome a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must first allege the deprivation of an actual constitutional right, and second, show that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Norman Slattery v. Christopher Rizzo

939 F.2d 213 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 25, 1991

For the purpose of determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity the plaintiff’s rights must be clearly established under the particular circumstances confronting the official at the time of the questioned … The right of the plaintiff must be established so clearly that a reasonable official would know what he is doing violates that right. Ibid.

Fowler v. Nicholas

522 F. Supp. 655 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 1981

Thus, the court in Woods has included in the defense of qualified immunity the duty to know clearly settled rights. … Therefore, the qualified-immunity defense is irrelevant to this claim.

White v. Chapman

119 F. Supp. 3d 420 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 6, 2015

The Court holds that Deputy Phillips is not entitled to qualified immunity in this casé because genuine issues of material fact remain regarding whether Defendant violated Plaintiffs clearly established Fourth Amendment rights … As to qualified immunity, the constitutional rights at issue are clearly established, and a reasonable officer would have been aware of the Fourth Amendment requirement of probable cause, for arrest or issuing a summons on

Jan G. v. Semple

202 Conn. App. 202 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jan 12, 2021

The plaintiff contends that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. We agree with the defendants. The following well established legal principles guide our analysis. … ‘‘Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established

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

Zollicoffer v. Livingston

169 F. Supp. 3d 687 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 14, 2016

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable … That “runs directly counter to Farmer’s directive,” and contravenes clearly established law. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff has alleged facts that could defeat qualified immunity.