Case law

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.'

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

Doll v. Pennsylvania State Police

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2025

Doll responds that Trooper Tremaine’s conduct violates clearly established law and thus Trooper Tremaine’s actions cannot be protected by qualified immunity. (Doc. 36, at 12-15). … “In light of a clearly established right, district courts tend to deny qualified immunity when the reasonableness of the force used is factually disputed.” Guthrie v. Guthrie, 216 F. Supp. 3d 590, 596 (W.D.

Omasta v. Bedingfield

689 So. 2d 409 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 7, 1997

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, "government officials performing discretionary *410 functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The Florida Supreme Court has furthermore recognized that the qualified immunity of public officials involves " immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability." Tucker v.

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.

Randy Cole v. Michael Hunter

802 F.3d 752 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 25, 2015

Clearly established law Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, we ask whether it was clearly established in October 2010 that using deadly force against a person in circumstances like those here … established law, and Officer Carson is entitled to qualified immunity.

Bean v. City of Buffalo

822 F. Supp. 1016 · District Court, W.D. New York · May 28, 1993

These defendants argued that, given their version of the facts, plaintiffs decedent had no clearly established constitutional right to be protected from the force that was used against her, and that they had an objectively … Furthermore, such an argument would fly in the face of the clearly established principle that police officers are not entitled to qualified immunity for shootings of unarmed individuals who pose no substantial threat of death

Roberts v. Source for Public Data

606 F. Supp. 2d 1042 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Dec 1, 2008

“Clearly-established” rights are at issue in determining qualified immunity. See discussion of Qualified Immunity, infra. … Qualified Immunity Finally, Davis argues that Plaintiffs’ DPPA claim against him is barred by qualified immunity.

Dennis Ryno v. City of Waynesville

58 F.4th 995 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 26, 2023

They argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because Ryno failed to show any Fourth Amendment violation, and even if he did, it was not clearly established. … While the issue of probable cause addresses the first, constitutional-violation prong, “the issue of arguable probable cause is properly part of the resolution of qualified immunity’s second prong, the clearly established

Jesse Redmond v. Isaac Fulwood, Jr.

859 F.3d 11 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 9, 2017

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from suits for money damages unless a plaintiff shows both that (i) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (ii) that right was “clearly established … Fourth, Fulwood is entitled to qualified immunity for Redmond’s allegation of bias arising from the nature of his crime because there is no clearly established right for parole- eligible prisoners to be treated equally in

Ruby Hicks v. Doris Scott

958 F.3d 421 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 1, 2020

She further contends that the defendants should be denied qualified immunity because the right to be free from warrantless entry into an apartment was clearly established and there is a genuine dispute of fact as to whether … To that end, “[a]n officer conducting a search is entitled to qualified immunity if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed’ that the search was lawful ‘in light of clearly established law and the information the searching

Pitt v. District of Columbia

558 F. Supp. 2d 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 2, 2008

In engaging in a qualified immunity analysis, the Court “must determine whether a constitutional right has been violated before moving to the analysis of whether a right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant … Accordingly, Detective Bovino is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Marriott v. USD 204, Bonner Springs-Edwardsville

289 F. Supp. 3d 1235 · District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 8, 2017

Defendants further claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that video recording in a public classroom is a violation of constitutional rights. … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff can show "(1) a reasonable jury could find facts supporting a violation of a constitutional right, which (2) was clearly established at the time of the defendant's

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.

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.

Keylon v. City of Albuquerque

535 F.3d 1210 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 5, 2008

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)], the Court reconsidered the standard it previously had established for the affirmative defense of qualified or ‘good faith’ immunity.” Lutz v. Weld County Sch. … The clearly established test is whether the officer acted objectively reasonably. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19.

Baker v. Clearwater County

District Court, D. Idaho · Jan 3, 2022

An officer sued under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity from suit, unless the officer’s conduct 1) violated a constitutional right, and 2) that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the … Thus, both of the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the Section 1983 claims brought against them individually.

C.B. v. Sonora School District

691 F. Supp. 2d 1170 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 8, 2010

Qualified Immunity. Defendants move to dismiss the Eighth Cause' of Action on the ground that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages under Section 1983. … Qualified immunity serves to shield government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

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.

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.”