Case law

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.

Wilson v. Montano

715 F.3d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 3, 2013

Appellants claim they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Appellants nonetheless argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established law delineating which of them had the obligation to provide Wilson with a probable cause hearing.

Ringuette v. City of Fall River

906 F. Supp. 55 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 9, 1995

“Qualified immunity shields state officials exercising discretionary authority from civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … has no qualified immunity from suit, presents a question of law... .

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.

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

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).

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.

Deanna Copeland v. Lucas Wicks

468 S.W.3d 886 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 21, 2015

Detective moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. In sustaining the motion, the trial court found there was no dispute as to the material facts and Detective was entitled to qualified immunity. … Law enforcement officers are not entitled to qualified immunity, however, if their actions violate a clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known at the time of the alleged violation.

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.

Thomas v. Independence Township

463 F.3d 285 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 14, 2006

plaintiff complains violated clearly established law." … Thus, "[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."

Griffin Industries, Inc. v. Irvin

496 F.3d 1189 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 21, 2007

If, however, the official violated the law but his conduct was not clearly established as unlawful, the court must grant him qualified immunity. McClish, 483 F.3d at 1249. … Only when the official violated the law and the illegality of his conduct was clearly established must the court deny him the protection of qualified immunity. See Vinyard v.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Batiste v. City of Beaumont

421 F. Supp. 2d 1000 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 10, 2006

in reference to clearly-established law. … Consequently, the court must answer the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis (has plaintiff alleged violation of a clearly established federal right?) in the negative. As such, Lt.

Christopher Cantu v. City of Dothan, Alabama

974 F.3d 1217 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 3, 2020

established, which entitled her to qualified immunity on the federal claim and state agent immunity on the state claim. … That means the same facts that establish an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity “also establish that [she] is not entitled to” state agent immunity. Hunter, 941 F.3d at 1284.

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

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.