Case law

Youngblood v. Qualls

308 F. Supp. 3d 1184 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 6, 2018

immunity framework discussed above, the Court must examine "first, whether plaintiff has established a constitutional violation under the three-part Worrell standard and, second, whether the law was clearly established such … Thus, our circuit uses a sliding scale to determine when law is clearly established.

Carlos Gonzalez v. Able Huerta

826 F.3d 854 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 23, 2016

Because we find no violation of clearly established law, we AFFIRM. I. … Huerta asserted qualified immunity and moved for summary judgment.

Patrick Devlin v. Richard Kalm

531 F. App'x 697 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 15, 2013

In order to overcome the defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity, Devlin must show that the defendants (1) violated his constitutional rights and (2) that those rights were clearly established at the time … “Clearly established” rights must be defined at an “appropriate level of generality” to avoid “collapsing the two qualified- immunity inquiries into one” without being so narrow that no violation can ever be found.

Saleem v. Snow

217 Ga. App. 883 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jul 14, 1995

Qualified immunity shields state officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate *886 clearly established federal law of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … These include his claims that qualified immunity was improperly granted because it is clearly established that (1) he has a right to be fairly considered for parole; (2) rules prohibiting actions must provide adequate notice

Michael Rivera v. Kevin Monko

37 F.4th 909 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 15, 2022

Instead, the court jumped straight to the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … The Majority Opinion recognizes that such a right is not clearly established, and on that basis, it grants qualified immunity to two prison guards who were sued by an inmate for violating that right.

Stephen L. Bartlett v. Colonel C.E. Fisher Captain S.T. Davis

972 F.2d 911 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 13, 1992

Under this objective standard, public officials are entitled to qualified immunity when their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … The district court denied their qualified immunity motion because defendants’ motive in disciplining Bartlett is a disputed issue of fact and the law is “clearly established” that a public employee may not be disciplined

Timothy Taylor v. Michigan Department of Corrections, Dale E. Foltz Gwen Bogan Don Wentworth A.E. Tessmer John Doe, No. 1

14 F.3d 602 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 22, 1993

B. 8 Foltz is entitled to qualified immunity in the performance of official discretionary functions to the extent that his conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Harlow v. … I am troubled, however, on the question of qualified immunity--whether Taylor "failed to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right." See Siegert v.

Jamie Becker v. Zachary Effriechs

821 F.3d 920 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 12, 2016

to qualified immunity as a matter of law.” … to qualified immunity on this record.

Mosby v. Moore

716 So. 2d 551 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1998

Alternatively, their basis for the motion was that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiff's claims. … He also ruled that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities. 1. Official Capacity ¶ 30.

White v. Busboom

901 N.W.2d 294 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Sep 15, 2017

Whether an official may prevail in his or her qualified immunity defense depends upon the objec- tive reasonableness of his or her conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law. 13. ____: ___ … Court Erred in Determining That White’s Predeprivation Due Process R ights Were Clearly Established (a) Qualified Immunity Principles [11,12] The doctrine of qualified

Hawkins v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of Coffey Cnty. Kan.

376 F. Supp. 3d 1200 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 19, 2019

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that even if plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a violation of her due process rights, Maley and Phelan are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly … Alternatively, the Court finds that Maley and Phelan are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because at the time of the alleged violation, the law was not clearly established. See, e.g. , Greene v.

Ralph Harrison Benning v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections

71 F.4th 1324 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 23, 2023

The Supreme Court re- cently summarized this aspect of the qualified immunity inquiry: Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s con- duct does not violate clearly established statutory … Thus, because the law was not clearly established, we affirm the district court’s ruling that Ms. Edgar and Ms. Patterson are en- titled to qualified immunity on Mr.

Stamps Ex Rel. Estate of Stamps v. Town of Framingham

813 F.3d 27 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 5, 2016

The rules for granting qualified immunity are well established. … any Courts of Appeals . . . decline to consider district court precedent when determining if constitutional rights are clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity

Barna v. Board of School Directors of the Panther Valley School District

143 F. Supp. 3d 205 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 2015

The Defendants are Entitled to 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 … Qualified immunity attaches unless the official’s conduct violated such a clearly established right. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987).

Abell v. Dewey

847 P.2d 36 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1993

However, certain considerations may defeat a claim of qualified immunity. … In a recent opinion involving qualified immunity, we set out the following: [T]he right the official is alleged to have violated must have been “clearly established” in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense

In Re Scott County Master Docket

618 F. Supp. 1534 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Oct 2, 1985

plaintiffs have asserted violations of clearly established rights. … Yet a defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity can defeat a section 1983 action prior to discovery only if the plaintiff has not alleged that the defendant violated clearly established rights.

McCall v. Williams

59 F. Supp. 2d 556 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Aug 16, 1999

Plaintiff maintains that his right to be free from the application of handcuffs which were too tight was clearly established on the date of the incident. … Just as the Supreme Court found that the officials in Wilson had violated the plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights, yet they were entitled to qualified immunity because the specific right had not been clearly established at

Lee Krueger and Mary Delacour v. Don Fuhr

991 F.2d 435 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 1, 1993

The District Court’s opinion discusses only Fuhr’s defense ‘‘on the merits," and not his qualified immunity defense. … However, we take this opportunity to suggest that district courts clearly address the qualified immunity issue. 3 .

Jordan Venema v. Fred West

133 F.4th 625 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 3, 2025

After concluding that the Complaint sufficiently alleged that DeAngelo violated Venema’s constitutional rights, the district court determined that DeAngelo was not entitled to qualified immunity, because clearly established … Violation of a Clearly Established Right Having concluded that the Estate sufficiently pleaded that DeAngelo violated Venema’s constitutional rights, we turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis

Gwinnett County v. King

218 Ga. App. 800 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Oct 4, 1995

“Government officials performing discretionary functions are granted a qualified immunity shielding them from imposition of personal liability pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … established.