Case law

Marley v. City of Allentown

774 F. Supp. 343 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 1991

A government official asserting qualified immunity must establish that his conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … the legal rules that were ‘clearly established at the time it was taken.’”

Gausvik v. Abbey

107 P.3d 98 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 23, 2005

Qualified Immunity ¶ 66 A DSHS employee cannot be held personally liable for damages under a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional *109 right. Robinson v. … After a defendant asserts the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must show a clearly established constitutional right existed that the defendant violated.

Hoffman v. Kelz

443 F. Supp. 2d 1007 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Aug 3, 2006

Finally, defendant Kelz is not entitled to qualified immunity at this time because plaintiff has alleged facts suggesting that defendant Kelz’s conduct violated plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights. … that would clearly establish his constitutional rights.

Estate of Lee v. City of Spokane

101 Wash. App. 158 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 15, 2000

Police officers have qualified immunity from liability for civil damages for conduct that “ ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Id. … Entitlement to qualified immunity may be established, and was established here, as a matter of law. Robinson v. City of Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 34, 65 , 830 P.2d 318 (1992). By the plaintiffs’ own account, Mr.

Feasel v. Willis

904 F. Supp. 582 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 9, 1995

It is the Plaintiff who must overcome the claim to qualified immunity. The Defendant filed two briefs on the issue of qualified immunity. … Creighton, supra, the terminology “clearly established” has an important application to any claim of qualified immunity. Anderson v. Creighton, supra, cited with favor in Malley v.

Michael Wigginton, Jr. v. University of Mississipp

964 F.3d 329 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 1, 2020

The district court erred when it denied defendants’ motion for qualified immunity and concluded that Wigginton had a clearly-established property interest. … We regularly grant qualified immunity in substantive due process cases where the plaintiff fails to establish a clearly- established property interest. See, e.g., Wilkerson v. Univ. of N. Tex.

Pauly v. White

874 F.3d 1197 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 31, 2017

are entitled to qualified immunity. … But, as we explained above, Officer -White is entitled to qualified immunity because his alleged use of excessive force was not clearly established in the circumstances of this case.

Jones v. Fountain

121 F. Supp. 2d 571 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Jul 7, 2000

The court will now proceed to the qualified immunity discussion. IV. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY In his third motion for summary judgment, defendant argues Jones’ claims are barred by qualified immunity. … In assessing a qualified immunity claim the district court must determine “whether (1) the plaintiffs have asserted a constitutional or statutory violation; (2) the law regarding the alleged violation was clearly established

McKinnon v. Gardner

Connecticut Appellate Court · Apr 28, 2026

That qualified immunity “protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … “[A] claim for qualified immunity from liability Albert, 50 Conn.

Stone v. Peacock

968 F.2d 1163 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1992

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense which protects public officials acting within the scope of their discretionary authority and under clearly established law from insubstantial lawsuits. Butz v. … The jury was instructed to determine if defendants violated clearly established law.

Toney v. Harrod

372 F. Supp. 3d 1156 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 13, 2019

was clearly established at the time of the defendant's unlawful conduct." 15 Therefore, "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts that show-when taken as true-the … Clearly Established Law Under the second prong of the qualified immunity test, Sullivan is entitled *1165 to immunity unless his alleged actions violated a clearly established right.

Tripp v. Department of Defense

173 F. Supp. 2d 58 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 30, 2001

Defendants Did Not Violate Clearly Established Law Most executive officials are immune from suits alleging constitutional and statutory violations unless they violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights … In discussing the qualified immunity standard, those courts have focused primarily on the question of a violation of clearly established law. See, e.g., Anderson v.

Jones v. City of Dothan, Alabama

121 F.3d 1456 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 17, 1997

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil litigation and liability where "their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights … With regard to the excessive force claim, the magistrate judge concluded that Estress and Wright were not entitled to qualified immunity since "on February 11, 1994, the law was clearly established that use of excessive

Carswell v. Camp

37 F.4th 1062 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 17, 2022

But Carswell says this was “the opposite of a refusal or failure to rule” because the “district court clearly indicated it would timely address Individual Defendants’ qualified immunity defense.” … “Unless 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.”

Thibodeaux v. City of Port Arthur

783 F. Supp. 299 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Jan 24, 1992

insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, Harlow v. … The court is to determine immunity from suit based on the pleadings applying an “objective legal reasonableness” test, assessing the action in the light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it occurred

Johnny Banks v. Shelby Hawkins

999 F.3d 521 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 27, 2021

Where the record does not conclusively establish the lawfulness of an officer’s use of force, summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is inappropriate. Nance v. … to overcome qualified immunity.

Liberal v. Estrada

632 F.3d 1064 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 19, 2011

right violated was not clearly established at the time of the violation. … Construing the facts in favor of Plaintiff, the use of force was not reasonable and violated clearly established constitutional law. Therefore, Officers Estrada and Keegan are not entitled to qualified immunity. C.

James Setchfield v. Scott Ronald

109 F.4th 1084 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 31, 2024

“To defeat qualified immunity, [the plaintiff] must prove that: (1) the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to him, demonstrate the deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) the right was clearly established … Under these circumstances, it was unreasonable to use more than de minimis force against him.3 Since Setchfield has established his excessive-force claim, we next turn to the clearly established prong of the qualified-immunity

Aldini v. Johnson

609 F.3d 858 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 29, 2010

Bodine was entitled to qualified immunity. … Under the “clearly established” inquiry, the question is whether the right was “so ‘clearly established’ that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Vargas-Badillo v. Diaz-Torres

114 F.3d 3 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 30, 1997

The Qualified Immunity Standard A. … of clearly established law, was met.