Case law

Hernandez v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services

380 F.3d 872 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 31, 2004

The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry. First, a court must decide whether a plaintiff’s allegation, if true, establishes a violation of a clearly established right. Hare v. … Even if the government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable.

Engesser v. Fox

District Court, D. South Dakota · Sep 23, 2019

Qualified immunity “Public officials are immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they have violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at … Second, the court must “ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id. A negative outcome to either inquiry results in qualified immunity for the official. Pearson v.

Shilling v. Crawford

536 F. Supp. 2d 1227 · District Court, D. Nevada · Mar 12, 2008

Plaintiff argues Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated his clearly established rights under RLUIPA. 1. … Qualified immunity applies unless a defendant’s conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Hope v.

Rand v. Lavoie

2017 DNH 177 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Sep 5, 2017

Legal Standard To overcome Lavoie’s qualified immunity defense, Rand must show that Lavoie “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Qualified immunity attaches unless Lavoie “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Mullenix, 136 S. Ct. at 308 (citation omitted).

Cochran v. Gilliam

656 F.3d 300 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 2, 2011

a violation of clearly established law.” … Because the subject of the interlocutory appeal is limited to the pure legal issue of whether the facts alleged constitute a violation of clearly established law, “a defendant seeking qualified immunity must be willing to

Galloway v. Hadl

548 F. Supp. 2d 1215 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 28, 2008

If plaintiffs allegations sufficiently allege the deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right, qualified immunity will not protect defendants. I. … Because plaintiff has not alleged a clearly established violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Hadl, Hofer and Riggs are entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. B.

Jesse Drewniak v. P U.S. Customs and Border Protection et al.

2021 DNH 020 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jan 26, 2021

Qualter’s Assertions of Qualified Immunity Do Not Warrant a Stay of All Pretrial Proceedings and Discovery Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity if “their conduct does not violate clearly … It is for this reason that, “[u]nless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery

Amanda Pierner-Lytge v. Montrell Hobbs

60 F.4th 1039 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 23, 2023

Qualified Immunity “[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at … No. 22-1976 Under prong two, Pierner-Lytge must demonstrate that it was clearly established in April 2020 that probable cause to arrest her for disorderly conduct did not exist.

John Dee Carruth v. Robert J. Bentley

942 F.3d 1047 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 7, 2019

Since there is no clearly established law establishing that Carruth’s alleged differential treatment violated the Equal Protection Clause, Bentley and Byrne are entitled to qualified immunity. … It is Carruth’s burden to establish that Byrne and Bentley are not entitled to qualified immunity and he has not met it.

Saenz v. Lovington Municipal School District

105 F. Supp. 3d 1271 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Apr 30, 2015

established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis.

Allen v. Kevin Taylor

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 21, 2025

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … For now, the officers cannot avail themselves of qualified immunity because Allen has identified a clearly established right to be free from unlawful custody as part of a prosecution.

Anselmo v. County of Shasta

873 F. Supp. 2d 1247 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 8, 2012

“[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 should have … If a right is clearly established, a public official is granted qualified immunity only if a reasonable official would not have known that his conduct violated the clearly established right. See id.

Charles Johnson, Jr. v. City of Atlanta

107 F.4th 1292 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 12, 2024

To show that qualified immunity is not appropriate, “the plaintiff must establish two things: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) that constitutional right was ‘clearly established … immunity, and we do not address the second prong—whether the law was clearly established. 7 C.

Herrera v. City of Albuquerque

589 F.3d 1064 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 14, 2009

O’Brien [wa]s entitled to qualified immunity and [thus was] immune from suit.” Id. at 120. … Qualified immunity “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

Jones v. Han

993 F. Supp. 2d 57 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 28, 2014

The qualified-immunity analysis employs a two-part test: (1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at … “When a supervisor seeks qualified immunity in a § 1983 action, the ‘clearly established’ prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is satisfied when (1) the subordinate’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional

Chinchello v. Fenton

805 F.2d 126 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 14, 1986

We acknowledge that on these facts the distinction between an “I didn’t do it” defense and a qualified immunity defense based on the absence of a clearly established legal duty is not as clear cut as in most other contexts … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738, instructed that qualified immunity is unavailable if the defendant’s conduct violated “clearly established ... statutory rights” and, based on Davis v.

City of Palestine v. Ramirez

925 S.W.2d 250 · Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District (Tyler) · Jan 26, 1996

In her response to the motion for summary judgment Ramirez asserted, inter alia, that the summary judgment evidence was insufficient to establish all of the elements of qualified immunity as a matter of law. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense; the burden is on the defendant to establish each element of that defense. City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 S.W.2d 650, 653 (Tex.1994); Rhodes v.

Sarita Merricks v. Jeffery Adkisson

785 F.3d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 15, 2015

The Qualified Immunity Defense and the Clearly Established Requirement The qualified immunity defense “provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” … established prong of the qualified immunity defense.

Robert Saterdalen v. James Spencer

725 F.3d 838 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 5, 2013

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability and the burdens of litigation in a § 1983 suit unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable … The question of qualified immunity thus “generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the [official’s] action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

DeWald v. Wyner

674 So. 2d 836 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 15, 1996

It is well settled that public officials are immune in their individual capacities from suits for damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In this case immunity turns on the second element, namely whether defendants' conduct violated clearly established constitutional law. If applicable law is unsettled, immunity necessarily results. Nicholson v.