Case law

David v. Mosley

915 F. Supp. 776 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 16, 1996

Mosley’s Claim Of Qualified Immunity: Counts I, II And IY Mosley seeks summary judgment on Counts I, II and IV, on the theory that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Baker, 825 F.2d 772, 774 (4th Cir.1987). 8 This is because “... there are two levels on which the immunity shield operates. First, the particular right must be clearly established in the 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.

Clark v. Ware

873 F. Supp. 2d 1117 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Jun 4, 2012

Qualified immunity Both Johnson and Ware raise the issue of qualified immunity. … immunity was still appropriate, however, because the law was not clearly established)).

Monetti v. City of Seattle

875 F. Supp. 2d 1221 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 21, 2012

Qualified Immunity Analysis Qualified immunity shields public officials from civil damages for the performance of their discretionary functions. … Even if the constitutional rights of the plaintiff were violated, unless the right is clearly established, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Estate of Owensby v. City of Cincinnati

414 F.3d 596 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 7, 2005

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the facts alleged fail to establish a constitutional violation, then the inquiry ends and the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

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.

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.

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

Gressley v. Deutsch

890 F. Supp. 1474 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Oct 5, 1994

and law to establish that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity and do more than identify, in the abstract, a clearly established right.

Lewis v. Delgado

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 7, 2026

The district court refused to grant qualified immunity to the officers at the summary-judgment stage. Because the officers did not violate any clearly established law by handcuffing Lewis, we REVERSE. … With or without notice, the Officers’ conduct does not amount to a violation of clearly established law. 3 The district court should have granted qualified immunity to the Officers.

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.

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

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.”

State of West Virginia ex rel. Gabriel Devono and The Board of Education of Randloph County v. The Honorable David H. Wilmoth, Judge of the Circuit Court of Randolph Coutny, Sherman Arbogast, and Marlene Arbogast

West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 15, 2023

Devono now assert the defense of qualified immunity? … Hall, 828 F.3d 298, 303 (4th Cir. 2016) (“Qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Lena Davenport v. Borough of Homestead

870 F.3d 273 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 29, 2017

clearly established law. … IV “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

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

Armstrong v. Daily

786 F.3d 529 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 11, 2015

In holding that the complaint alleges a violation of clearly established constitutional law, we express no opinion on the propriety of qualified immunity at a later stage of litigation. E. … The qualified immunity defense focuses instead on whether the official defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional 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.

Sheth v. Webster

145 F.3d 1231 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 2, 1998

suit unless they violate clearly established law”). … The same facts which establish Sergeant Williams’ entitlement to qualified immunity establish that his acts were not willful, malicious or in bad faith.

Cathy Neely, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. Stephen Feinstein, Defendants-Appellants-Cross

50 F.3d 1502 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 3, 1995

Defendant Feinstein The district court concluded that Feinstein was not entitled to qualified immunity because the law was clearly established that hospital officials must ensure their patients’ safety, and that the record … Was the Law Clearly Established?