Case law

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.

Garvey v. Vermilion

2012 Ohio 1258 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 2012

‘If no constitutional right would have been violated were the  5 allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.’” … be determined before trial whether the defendant did acts that violate clearly established rights.”

Todd E. Prater v. John Dahm Harold W. Clarke Aaron Hall Bobby C. Kilgore

89 F.3d 538 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 17, 1996

They argue that their actions did not violate Prater’s clearly established constitutional right to protection from inmate attacks, and thus that they are entitled to qualified immunity. II. … 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. See Anderson v.

Norman v. Schuetzle

585 F.3d 1097 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 9, 2009

Where “the unlawfulness of the officers’ conduct ... was not clearly established, [the officers] are entitled to qualified immunity.” Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 823 . … In analyzing a claim of qualified immunity, we therefore look at the specific actions of the officer to determine whether it was clearly established that his actions violated the inmate’s rights.

Gray v. State

624 A.2d 479 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 11, 1993

On a motion by Levesque, the court dismissed the civil rights claim finding that Levesque did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights and therefore was en *482 titled to qualified immunity. … Malice or improper motive, alone, is not sufficient to defeat qualified immunity. Myers, 810 F.2d at 1457 . An official’s entitlement to qualified immunity is a legal, not a factual issue. Snell v.

Estate of Escobedo v. Bender

600 F.3d 770 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 5, 2010

Clearly Established The Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established on July 19, 2005, to place them on notice that the use of tear gas and flash bang devices in … established right and therefore the Defendants are not protected by qualified immunity. 2.

Distiso v. Town of Wolcott

352 F. App'x 478 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 5, 2009

The district court then denied the Defendants’ qualified immunity defense, asserting conclusorily that Nicholas’s right to be free from racial discrimination was clearly established, and that a reasonable school official … Therefore, if the facts alleged by the Plaintiff here do not make out violation of a “clearly established” constitutional right, then qualified immunity is available. Id. at 816 ; see also Okin v.

B.F. & K.L.F. v. Division of Youth & Family Services

296 N.J. Super. 372 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 15, 1997

The DYFS employees and the deputy attorneys general contend they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law because they did not violate a clearly established federal statutory or constitutional right. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense would ordinarily fail. Id. at 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d at 411 . [ Id at 180-81, 536 A.2d 229 .]

Lytle v. Brewer

77 F. Supp. 2d 730 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Dec 22, 1999

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable … Brewer argues that if the plaintiffs’ rights were violated, they were not clearly established, and therefore, he should be entitled to qualified immunity.

Wheeler v. Marengo

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 13, 2019

Appx. 647, 649 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The law in this circuit 6 is clearly established that ‘a prison official acts with deliberate indifference when he 7 ignores the instructions of the prisoner’s treating physician … Defendants’ Entitlement to Qualified Immunity 8 The Supreme Court has set forth a two-part analysis for resolving government 9 officials’ qualified immunity claims. See Saucier v.

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.

Richard Frenchman v. Herbert Saloum

236 F. App'x 235 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 31, 2007

The district court based its summary judgment decision on qualified immunity. Upon de novo review, we affirm. See K.D. v. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001) (“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”); Logan v.

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?

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

Peavy v. Dallas Independent School District

57 F. Supp. 2d 382 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 31, 1999

Qualified Immunity Defendant Kress contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity for the al~ leged violation of the Act and the alleged constitutional violation. … Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue.

Jackson v. Government of the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 11, 2024

“Even if there is a genuine dispute about the reasonableness of an officer’s use of force, he is protected by qualified immunity unless his force violated clearly established law.” Hedgpeth v. … Officer Lombardini asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. Def.’s Mot. at 14–15. Jackson contends that the officer violated clearly established law and is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Thoma v. Hickel

947 P.2d 816 · Alaska Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1997

Qualified immunity under federal law protects officials except where it is “clearly established” as of the time of the acts complained of that the acts violated the plaintiffs rights. … If the plaintiffs allegations fail to establish a constitutional claim, the defendant is entitled to dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity, or, of course, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Clayton Hulbert v. Brian Pope

70 F. 4th 726 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 14, 2023

Given these facts, Pope is entitled to qualified immunity unless it was clearly established that ordering Kevin to move back while he was filming would violate his First Amendment rights. … This order did not violate Kevin’s clearly established rights.

Eleanor Keller v. Attala County

930 F.3d 746 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 23, 2019

To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that (1) there was a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s conduct. … Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a clearly established substantive due process right on the facts they allege.

Merriweather v. Zamora

569 F.3d 307 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 24, 2009

The defendants argue that the district court improperly denied qualified immunity because they violated no clearly established constitutional right of Merriweather’s and their actions, if not a reasonable application of the … The final prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires us to consider whether the defendants acted objectively unreasonably “in light of the clearly established constitutional rights.”