Case law

Perry v. Woodruff County Sheriff Department ex rel. Barker

858 F.3d 1141 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 5, 2017

Qualified immunity protects law enforcement officers from liability for civil damages so long as their'conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have … Accordingly, Pennycook does not control this case, and we conclude that Perry’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force was clearly established in August 2009 such that Wolfe was not entitled to qualified immunity

Binay v. Bettendorf

601 F.3d 640 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 20, 2010

“Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the officials are not entitled to qualified immunity.” Silberstein v. … Clearly Established Constitutional Right After determining that Plaintiffs have raised sufficient facts to support a Fourth Amendment violation, we next ask “whether the right was clearly established . . . in light

Armengau v. Cline

7 F. App'x 336 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 1, 2001

qualified immunity on an interlocutory appeal.” … In evaluating claims of qualified immunity under section 1983, we first determine whether a constitutional violation occurred and only then consider *346 whether the right violated was clearly established such that a reasonable

Bruce Anderson v. State of Texas

913 F.3d 472 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 14, 2019

Qualified immunity “protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” 7 To overcome a defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity on summary judgment, “a plaintiff must show that the evidence … immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged retaliation, we end our inquiry and reverse the district court’s denial of summary judgment on the individual- capacity claim. 25

Baggerly v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

370 S.C. 362 · Supreme Court of South Carolina · Aug 28, 2006

Causation-in-fact is proved by establishing the injury would not have occurred “but for” the defendant’s negligence, and legal cause is proved by establishing foreseeability. Id. … or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify.”

Lawrence J. Brozik v. Mark A. Kalish

942 F.2d 790 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 29, 1991

II. 4 An official in Kalish's position is entitled to qualified immunity when his conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … III. 7 The existence of clearly established law, however, does not end our inquiry.

Cottrell v. Caldwell

85 F.3d 1480 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 3, 1996

An example of such an issue is "whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions or, ... whether the law clearly proscribed the actions the defendant … whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established."

Crawford v. Geiger

996 F. Supp. 2d 603 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 10, 2014

/A 4 The Sixth Circuit has summarized the doctrine of qualified immunity and related principles: Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate clearly established … Even if there is such right, they argue, that right has yet to be clearly established, so the doctrine of qualified immunity entitles the on scene officers, even if they impaired any such right, to dismissal. i.

Mario Garcia v. County of Riverside

817 F.3d 635 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 3, 2016

Amendment were clearly established. … asserts was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Church v. Anderson

249 F. Supp. 3d 963 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Apr 17, 2017

Qualified Immunity 1. Standards for qualified immunity Defendants also seek summary judgment on Church’s claims on the basis of qualified immunity. … Id. at 243-45 , 129 S.Ct. 808 ; accord Bishop, 723 F.3d at 961-62 (starting and ending its analysis of qualified immunity with the second prong of the analysis, the “clearly established right” determination); Hess v.

Maestas v. State of Colorado

351 F.3d 1001 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 26, 2003

was clearly established such that a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have known that [his] conduct violated that right.” … Maestas possesses a clearly established right to be free of such harassment. Sh.A. ex rel. J.A. v. Tucumcari Mun.

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center of Dallas v. Margulis

88 S.W.3d 641 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 31, 1999

Fain, and Kern Wildenthal, M.D., appellants, contend the trial court erred in denying their motion for partial summary judgment on the defense of qualified immunity. … Appellants moved for partial summary judgment on the section 1983 claims, asserting that Margulis did not plead with specificity enough facts to overcome their assertion of qualified immunity.

Halcomb v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

526 F. Supp. 2d 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 14, 2007

If so, the Court then must inquire whether the right allegedly violated was “clearly established” — that is, whether “ ‘the contours of the right [were] sufficiently clear that [an objectively] reasonable officer would understand … violated established law.

Creech Poole v. City of Shreveport

79 F.4th 455 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 17, 2023

A panel of this court affirmed the district court’s denial of summary judgment as to qualified immunity, concluding “that there was a violation of clearly established law if the jury resolves the factual disputes … “Qualified immunity shields officers from liability unless their conduct violates a clearly established federal right of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. at 423 (citing Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S.

Daniczek v. Spencer

156 F. Supp. 3d 739 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jan 11, 2016

In sum, “[qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 . … Spencer violated a clearly established rule.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anders v. Cuevas

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 12, 2019

“When the qualified immunity defense is raised at the pleading stage, the court must determine only whether the complaint ‘adequately alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law.’” … Martuscello, 890 F.3d 77, 94 (2d Cir. 2018) (First Amendment right of prisoner “not to snitch” not clearly established; defendants entitled to qualified immunity).