Case law

Obert v. State

419 Mont. 1 · Montana Supreme Court · Nov 12, 2024

Qualified Prosecutorial Immunity. … Ct. at 2815 (government officer “entitled to dismissal” of compensatory civil claim due to qualified immunity “[u]nless the [complaint] allegations” are facially sufficient to “state a claim of violation of clearly established

Hurd v. Fredenburgh

984 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 12, 2021

But because neither of these rights was clearly established before today, Fredenburgh is entitled to qualified immunity for any responsibility she may have had for Hurd’s prolonged detention. … Clearly Established Law “Government actors are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Peltier v. Sacks

328 F. Supp. 3d 1170 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 16, 2018

was not clearly established. 4 Under the qualified immunity doctrine, "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate … A two-part test resolves claims of qualified immunity by determining whether plaintiffs have alleged facts that "make out a violation of a constitutional right," and if so, whether the "right at issue was 'clearly established

William Andreu v. Glen E. Sapp, Individually and as Sheriff of Charlotte County, and William E. Reilly

919 F.2d 637 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 18, 1990

established right that the defendant has allegedly violated, the district court should defer ruling on the qualified immunity issue. … Thus, the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity if it was clearly established that the plaintiff was “in the employ” of the office.

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.

Staneart v. Board of Trustees of Ransom Memorial Hospital

684 F. Supp. 1573 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 18, 1988

Staneart responds that qualified immunity is inapplicable because clearly established law proscribed the defendants’ conduct. As stated above, the court will consider this motion as a motion for summary judgment. … If the plaintiff fails to convince the court that the law was clearly established, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity and judgment must be entered in his favor. Burk v.

Brad Livingston, Robert Treon, Martha Wear and Paul Morales v. Atiba Ramone Taylor, Tdcj 1082601

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Aug 6, 2009

Qualified Immunity (5) Qualified immunity shields a government official "performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages under section 1983, provided the official's conduct does not violate clearly established … When a government official pleads qualified immunity, the summary judgment burden shifts to the plaintiff to produce evidence which establishes that the official's conduct violated the clearly established law. Newman 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 .]

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.”

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.

Bailey ex rel. K.A. v. Preston

702 F. App'x 210 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 13, 2017

The instant defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if their use of force was “objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law at the time the challenged conduct occurred.” 13 “[Wjhile the right to *213 be … Appellants' entire argument on this second prong of the qualified immunity test is that ‘it is clearly established in the law that citizens are protected against unjustified, excessive police force.'

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.

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.

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).

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.

Carroll v. Robinson

178 Ariz. 453 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · May 12, 1994

Qualified immunity protects an official from civil liability in a section 1983 action for conduct which “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Whether the legal right allegedly violated was clearly established is a question of law; whether a reasonable official would know that he or she was violating that clearly established law is a question for the jury.

Felder v. Allen

29 So. 3d 897 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Aug 14, 2009

and/or qualified immunity. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because the conduct of the defendants “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional

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.

Pauly Ex Rel. Estate of Pauly v. White

814 F.3d 1060 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 9, 2016

They all argued they were entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff estate could not show Samuel’s claimed Fourth Amendment rights were clearly established or violated, and in any event their actions were objectively … “When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established

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.