Case law

Sarah Watkins v. City of St. Louis, Missouri

102 F.4th 947 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 29, 2024

“Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct did not ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … To overcome qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage, a plaintiff “must plead facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the

Piper Partridge v. City of Benton, Arkansas

929 F.3d 562 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 3, 2019

In a § 1983 action, qualified immunity shields government officials from liability “when their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … To overcome qualified immunity at the pleadings stage, a plaintiff must “plead[] facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time

Garcia v. Dutchess County

43 F. Supp. 3d 281 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 21, 2014

“The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” See id. at 1866 . … to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.”

Dorwart v. Caraway

290 Mont. 196 · Montana Supreme Court · Aug 4, 1998

In other words, the plaintiffs have to prove a negative in order to establish that they had a right which the majority initially concedes is clearly established. ¶ 148 I also dissent from the majority’s conclusion that Brophy … The majority’s decision to affirm the dismissal of Brophy and Stillwater County is based on the same unsound conclusion on which its qualified immunity decision is based — i.e., that Dorwart had no clearly established right

Grenning v. Klemme

34 F. Supp. 3d 1144 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jul 22, 2014

Qualified Immunity “[Qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Harrington would not be entitled to qualified immunity as the right to be free from arbitrary mail searches was clearly established in 2010. (ECF No. 56 at 17-18).

Liberian Community Association v. Lamont

970 F.3d 174 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 14, 2020

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … “[W]e have repeatedly held[] that a state statute does not serve as ‘clearly established law’ for purposes of qualified immunity.” Tooly v. Schwaller, 919 F.3d 165, 172 (2d Cir. 2019).

Hearn v. Rhay

68 F.R.D. 574 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 26, 1975

to plaintiff’s burden of proving malice or unreasonable disregard of his clearly established constitutional rights. … Defendants argue that they seek immunity on the narrow basis of the extent of plaintiff’s “clearly established constitutional rights” at the time of the alleged civil rights violations and not on the basis of legal advice

Anaya Serbia v. Lausell

646 F. Supp. 1236 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 11, 1986

The Supreme Court in Davis stated that: Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” … Because the “clearly established” test has not been met the defendants met the requirements of qualified immunity and are therefore entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims for money damages.

Visser v. Magnarelli

542 F. Supp. 1331 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 9, 1982

Fitzgerald, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2739 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) ("If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law … Treen, 671 F.2d 892, 899-900 (5th Cir. 1982) (violation of clearly established state law vitiates objective prong of good faith immunity defense).

Dehorty v. New Castle County Council

560 F. Supp. 889 · District Court, D. Delaware · Apr 14, 1983

immunity defense in a section 1983 action. *891 Defendants argue that the plaintiff bears the burden of proof on the defense of qualified immunity. … The defendants, therefore, bear the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the qualified immunity defense set forth in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Haavisto v. Perpich

498 N.W.2d 746 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jun 9, 1993

immunity grounds if they can show plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment right to be free from the “cruel and unusual” conditions was not clearly established during the time he was incarcerated); Bogard, 586 F.2d at 409 (problem of … Whether qualified immunity exists turns on whether the official violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right, the existence of which a reasonable person would have known. Id. at 674-75.

Chappell v. City of Cleveland

585 F.3d 901 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 4, 2009

Plaintiff Chappell correctly points out that the district court’s denial of qualified immunity is not based on a pure question of law, but on two clearly identified factual issues. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Boyd v. District of Columbia

526 F. Supp. 2d 44 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 26, 2007

Qualified immunity “shield[s officials] from liability for civil damages insofar as [the official’s] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Thus the right is not clearly established, and Robinson is entitled to qualified immunity from this claim. Accordingly, the court dismisses the plaintiffs’ constitutional claim.

J.H. ex rel. J.P. v. Nation

61 F. Supp. 3d 1176 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jan 14, 2015

established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualiñed Immunity Analysis.

Dunn v. McFeeley

127 N.M. 513 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 1999

The issue on appeal with respect to § 1983 is whether the Individual Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that their alleged misconduct had not been “clearly established” in 1994 to be contrary to … Such a person, however, is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless at the time of the alleged misconduct it was “clearly established” that the misconduct violated federal law. See Yount v.

John Steven Thomas Olinger v. Dennis J. Larson City of Sioux of South Dakota Falls Terry Satterlee

134 F.3d 1362 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 4, 1998

The district court dismissed Olinger’s entire action based upon a finding of qualified immunity for the arresting and supervising officers. Olinger timely appealed. We affirm. I. … The district court initially entered an order granting in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity.

Meyers v. Majkic

189 F. App'x 142 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 24, 2006

If a constitutional right may have been violated by the actions alleged, the defendant is only entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established. … A right is clearly established if it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his/her conduct was unlawful in the specific context of the case.

State v. W.S.B.

453 N.J. Super. 206 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 26, 2018

The defendant bears that burden of establishing the immunity by a preponderance *233 of the evidence. … "[I]t is only when the facts known to the prosecutor clearly indicate or clearly establish the appropriateness of an instruction that the duty of the prosecution arises."

Maropulos v. County of Los Angeles

560 F.3d 974 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 24, 2009

established due process right. … established right.

Francis v. Coughlin

849 F.2d 778 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 20, 1988

Defendants’ memorandum of law devoted nine pages to the defense of qualified immunity, arguing that the rights which plaintiff claims were violated were not clearly established in the years 1982-83. … In its only reference to qualified immunity, the court noted in a footnote that a prisoner’s right to have notice of and to comment on charges against him was clearly established prior to 1982, such that qualified immunity