Case law

Penilla v. City of Huntington Park

115 F.3d 707 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 6, 1997

Because the officers have moved for qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss, we decide only whether defendants’ alleged conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights. Todd v. … The officers argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established constitutional right to emergency medical care for persons not in custody and because there is no clearly established

Montague v. Cooley

735 So. 2d 511 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 28, 1999

A determination of qualified immunity involves a two part analysis. See Vermette v. … Cooley’s clearly established rights, we reverse the trial court’s order denying Officer Montague’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Reversed and remanded. FULMER, A.C.J., Concurs in result only.

Cocroft v. Smith

95 F. Supp. 3d 119 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 26, 2015

Whether Officer Smith Is Entitled To Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public employees “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Officer Smith argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the right to be free from a retaliatory arrest was not clearly established at the time.

Thomas v. Cannon

289 F. Supp. 3d 1182 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 30, 2018

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ...1213 A. Waiver...1213 1. Markert, Wiley, Cannon...1213 2. Zaro...1214 B. Constitutional Violation...1215 C. Clearly Established Law...1217 1. … The Court nonetheless affirmed qualified immunity for the officers because it recognized this rule was not clearly established in 1997 when the flash-bang was used. Id. at 784 .

Whitten v. Wooten

295 Ga. App. 281 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Dec 1, 2008

Qualified immunity gives government officials performing discretionary functions complete protection from individual claims brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 , if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory … She claims the force was excessive and violated clearly established constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Millard L. Swenson v. Myrna Trickey Larry Trickey Captain Fred Arflack

995 F.2d 132 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 17, 1993

A right is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes if [t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. … We conclude that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because neither of these issues was clearly established in February 1986. A. Did Swenson Have a Liberty Interest?

Ewy v. Sturtevant

962 P.2d 991 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 1998

conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … In determining the applicability of qualified immunity, the court need not decide whether specific actions of the officials were unconstitutional, but merely whether the conduct was so clearly unconstitutional that any reasonable

Banks v. Herbrich

90 F.4th 407 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 3, 2024

The district court denied DFPS’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that its employees were not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated clearly established law by removing R.B. … immunity analysis asks whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the misconduct.

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

Dunfee v. Finchum

132 F. Supp. 3d 968 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Sep 21, 2015

Qualified Immunity Officers Finchum and Cowan assert they are entitled to qualified immunity [Docs. 21, 30]. … Thus, plaintiff fails ■to meet the clearly established prong to defeat qualified immunity.

Van Deelen v. City of Eudora, Kan.

53 F. Supp. 2d 1223 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 29, 1999

At the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, qualified immunity protects defendants performing discretionary functions from individual liability unless, on the face of the complaint, the plaintiff alleges the violation of “clearly established … that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Jones v. Preuit & Mauldin

851 F.2d 1321 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 10, 1988

case are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity The district court found that P & M acted in good faith reliance upon laws which were not clearly unconstitutional.

Damron v. North Dakota Commissioner of Corrections

299 F. Supp. 2d 970 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Jan 26, 2004

The Eighth Circuit has instructed: Qualified immunity shields government actors from liability in civil lawsuits when “them conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … As our cases further establish, however, the question of qualified immunity requires more than a determination that a particular right is “clearly established” in the abstract.

Jackson Ex Rel. Jackson v. Nix

477 F. Supp. 2d 918 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jan 23, 2007

Qualified immunity Defendants assert they are protected by qualified immunity against the claims brought against them by the minor Plaintiff. … The Motion will be DENIED IN PART on the issue of qualified immunity so that Plaintiff Keely Jackson may have an opportunity to plead, if she can, specific factual allegations underlying any clearly-established constitutional

Kimberly Boude v. Michael Heady

855 F.3d 930 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 5, 2017

Qualified immunity is a basis to dismiss a claim against a public employee if the alleged conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … This court need not address the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See Harris, 550 U.S. at 377.

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.

Armstrong v. New Mexico Disability Determination Services

278 F. Supp. 3d 1193 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 30, 2017

The Supreme Court has clarified that the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity test is a very high burden for the plaintiff: “A Government official’s conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time … There is, therefore, no evidence that Fernandez-Rice violated clearly established law, so qualified immunity bars Armstrong’s claims against her.

Gruber v. Tennessee Tech Board of Trustees

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Dec 1, 2022

Indeed, a number of circuits have found that constitutional rights requiring a particularized balancing test will rarely be “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes. … Second, Plaintiffs argue: Defendant also cannot establish the second element of her qualified immunity defense, because Plaintiffs’ rights were clearly established at the

ND Indoor RV Park v. State

2025 ND 92 · North Dakota Supreme Court · May 8, 2025

Wishnatsky, at 401. [¶18] Wagendorf and Nelson are protected by qualified immunity unless the Park “pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly … A constitutional right is “clearly established” if the “contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.

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