Case law

Maxey ex rel. Maxey v. Fulton

890 F.2d 279 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 29, 1989

The Court reasoned that a denial of qualified immunity is conclusive because the court is deciding either that (1) the defendant violated clearly established law and is not entitled to immunity, or (2) that if the facts are … Mitchell itself recognizes that there will be times when discovery is proper: Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to

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.

Hearring v. Sliwowski

872 F. Supp. 2d 647 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jan 26, 2012

Our Circuit’s clearly established case law on this issue put the school and its employees on notice that this search was unconstitutional, so defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity protection. … to qualified immunity. 4.

David Wayne Givens v. Jimmy Jones, Terry Morris, Zak A. Ajans, M.D., Frederick Stephenson, Jr., Georgia Slater, and Denny Vasquez

900 F.2d 1229 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 9, 1990

The standard we must apply in deciding whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity is well established. … Ajans on the basis of qualified immunity.

Christopher Jones v. Howard Skolnik

671 F. App'x 560 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 16, 2016

a claim of violation of clearly established law"). 2. … When we address the issue of qualified immunity at the pleading stage, we ask whether the complaint "allege[s] facts sufficient to support [a] claim[] that [the defendant’s] conduct violated [the plaintiff’s] clearly established

Dickerson v. Mcclellan

101 F.3d 1151 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 9, 1996

Dickerson were objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established law regarding the knock and announce rule and its exceptions." … because they did not violate Dickerson's clearly established constitutional right to be free from excessive force.

Rich v. Montpelier Supervisory District

167 Vt. 415 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jan 23, 1998

He misunderstands the role of the objective standard in qualified immunity analysis. … , on the basis of nothing more than the official’s pretextual assertions, that the allegedly unconstitutional conduct contravened no clearly established law.’”

Francisco Carrillo, Jr. v. County of Los Angeles

798 F.3d 1210 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 26, 2015

The officers filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on qualified immunity, arguing it was not clearly established in 1984 that they were bound by Brady’s disclosure requirements. … Ditsch moved for summary judgment, arguing he was entitled to qualified immunity on Carrillo’s Brady claim because it was not clearly established in 1991 that Brady 16 CARRILLO V. CTY.

Deavers v. Vasquez

57 F. Supp. 3d 599 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Nov 5, 2014

DISCUSSION “Qualified immunity protects government officials who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry v. … Greene, 593 F.3d 348, 358 (4th Cir.2010). *607 “The Supreme Court has cautioned against interpreting clearly established law too generally for féar of allowing plaintiffs ‘to convert the rule of qualified immunity ... into

Bodiford v. State of Ala.

854 F. Supp. 886 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 17, 1994

Qualified immunity is available to “government officials performing discretionary functions ... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Therefore, the defendants conclude that a reasonable person would have believed their actions were lawful in light of the clearly established law, and, thus, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Russell v. City of Tupelo, Mississippi

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jun 16, 2021

Clifton, 29 F.3d 1012 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding that law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity “unless it is shown that, at the time of the incident, [the officer] violated a clearly established constitutional … An officer may successfully invoke the defense of qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Doe, SORB No. 474362 v. Sex Offender Registry Board

94 Mass. App. Ct. 52 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 19, 2018

from a damages claim because the constitutional rights the defendants allegedly violated were not "clearly established." … This is because as employees of a State executive agency, Hayden and Myers are immune from suit under § 1983 unless their actions violated clearly established constitutional rights.

Ard v. Rushing

911 F. Supp. 2d 425 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Aug 30, 2012

’s action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … Thus, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff shows “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly

Daniel Robbins v. City of Des Moines

984 F.3d 673 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 5, 2021

To overcome a claim of qualified immunity, Robbins must demonstrate (1) a deprivation of a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation. Id. … The defendant officers violated Robbins’s clearly established right to be free of unreasonable seizures of his property, see id., and are not entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Nolen v. Jackson

102 F.3d 1187 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 6, 1997

has failed to allege a violation of a clearly established right.... … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 1793, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991) (holding threshold question in a qualified immunity claim is whether a violation of a clearly established constitutional right has occurred);

Alberts v. Willis

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Dec 18, 2020

Qualified Immunity “Government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … For these reasons, qualified immunity is denied on this claim. IV.

Carl v. Angelone

883 F. Supp. 1433 · District Court, D. Nevada · Apr 19, 1995

Angelone’s instant motion for summary judgment argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the bfoq exception to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(l), is not clearly established. … Qualified immunity, a hybrid species of affirmative defense and immunity, places the initial burden on the plaintiff to prove that the right allegedly violated was clearly established. 3.

Durrant v. BD. OF EDUC. OF CITY OF HARTFORD

284 Conn. 91 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Oct 2, 2007

pursuant to section 10-16n [which allows the establishment of grant programs to assist local boards of education establishing extended day Head Start programs]”). … “[A] municipal employee . . . has a qualified immunity in the performance of a governmental duty, but he may be liable if he misperforms a ministerial act ... .

Farrell Ex Rel. Farrell v. Transylvania County Board of Education

175 N.C. App. 689 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 7, 2006

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability for performing official, discretionary functions if the conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Assuming arguendo that plaintiffs properly pled its claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , plaintiffs’ allegations, nonetheless, fail to establish any conduct by Haehnel that violated clearly established statutory