Case law

Edmiston v. Borrego

75 F.4th 551 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 1, 2023

“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established [statutory or] constitutional right.” Converse v. … Regarding the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis, for a right to be “clearly established” it must be “sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates

Laubinger v. Department of Revenue

41 Mass. App. Ct. 598 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Nov 14, 1996

Whether an asserted right was clearly established at a particular time so that a public official who allegedly violated the right has no qualified immunity “presents a question of law” which “must be resolved de novo on appeal … Accordingly, we hold Fay is entitled to qualified immunity.

The Estate of Jeremy Marr v. City of Glasgow

District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Jan 31, 2025

The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry: (1) whether a constitutional right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was clearly established, though the steps need not be taken in that order. … Clearly Established The second prong of qualified immunity analysis examines whether the right as clearly established. See Getz, 833 F.3d at 652 (citing Pearson v.

Leodis Sledge, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Tanesha Leach, and on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries and Heirs at Law v. City of Pine Bluff, Arkansas, by and Through Its Mayor, Shirley Washington, in Her Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of Pine Bluff, Arkansas; Pine Bluff City Council, by and Through Its Ex-Officio President, Shirley Washington, in Her Official Capacity; Rick Rhoden, in His Official Capacity as Director of Pine Bluff Street Department; And Kelvin Sargent, in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Pine Bluff

2022 Ark. App. 23 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 19, 2022

On appeal, Sledge argues (1) that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because his complaint sufficiently alleged violation of a clearly established statutory right; and … Because Sledge sued the public officials in their official capacities only, qualified immunity is not at issue.

Jo Anne Allison v. Dept. of Corrections

94 F.3d 494 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 30, 1996

See id. at 2156 (noting that a denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable so long as it turns on an issue of law; namely, "the purely legal issue [of] what law was `clearly established'"). … The clearly established law of Simon is relevant to determining whether the defendants acted reasonably at the time of Allison's discharge (the issue in this limited qualified immunity appeal), but will control the merits

Harris v. Huston

53 F. Supp. 2d 1027 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jun 21, 1999

The defendant has submitted a Rule 50 motion based on the defense of qualified immunity. The defendant argues that Mr. … I reserved ruling on the defendant’s qualified immunity motion partly because the defendant’s tardiness in raising the qualified immunity defense had effectively defeated its goal of sparing a public employee the cost of

Gonzalez, Gonzalez, Gonzalez v. Reno, Meissner, Holder, Mills, INS Agent

325 F.3d 1228 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 25, 2003

The defense of qualified immunity completely protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suit in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … It is therefore appropriate for a district court to grant the defense of qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage if the complaint “fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.”

Jones v. Clark

630 F.3d 677 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 14, 2011

- eral right at issue was clearly established at the time that the alleged violation occurred. … III As we mentioned, Officers Clark and Kaminski are entitled to immunity if their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a rea- sonable person would have known.

Brown v. City of Oneonta, NY

858 F. Supp. 340 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 18, 1994

Wilson and Hunt claim that the court applied the qualified immunity test improperly and assert that they cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless it was clearly established that an exception to FERPA did not apply … Yet, even if the rights in question are clearly established, a government actor may still be shielded by qualified immunity if “it was objectively reasonable for the public official to believe that his acts did not violate

Bridget Murphy v. A. Engelhart

933 F.3d 1027 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 14, 2019

Qualified immunity shields an officer if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Accordingly, Engelhart’s takedown did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Linda Sexton v. Thomas Cernuto

18 F.4th 177 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 8, 2021

Qualified immunity “shields government officials from ‘liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 2 The district … The qualified immunity analysis has two parts.

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

Acevedo-Garcia v. Vera-Monroig

204 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 17, 2000

work conditions and responsibilities was "clearly established." … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 (1982) ("If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail . . . .").

Hill v. CARROLL COUNTY, MISS.

467 F. Supp. 2d 696 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Dec 28, 2006

Qualified Immunity "Qualified immunity is `an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.' … If not, "the officer is entitled to qualified *701 immunity, and we need not consider whether the asserted right was `clearly established.'" Chavez v.

Billy Tyler v. Tom Barton and Frank O. Gunter

901 F.2d 689 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 26, 1990

An exception exists, however, where a court denies summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity because qualified immunity provides “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” … Thus, we conclude that Barton and Gunter did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. Accordingly, the doctrine of qualified immunity applies to Barton and Gunter. III.

Get Away Club, Inc. v. Vic Coleman, Jim Snyder

969 F.2d 664 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 13, 1992

“If the law was clearly established, the [qualified] immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law *667 governing [one's] conduct." Harlow v. … Accordingly, the troopers are entitled to qualified immunity on Get Away’s civil claim for monetary damages.

Ralston v. Cannon

884 F.3d 1060 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 13, 2018

The district court denied Cannon’s request for qualified immunity. … Procedural Background Cannon filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming he was entitled to qualified immunity. 2 He asserted that to establish a violation of the Free Exercise Clause, Ralston “must show that his

MacIas v. County of Los Angeles

50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 364 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 2006

violation, the right was not clearly established. … immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established).

Eunice Winzer v. Kaufman County

916 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 18, 2019

alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right;’ and second, ‘whether the right was clearly established.’” … The majority has correctly concluded that Officer Hinds is entitled to qualified immunity due to the lack of clearly established law.

Smith v. University of Washington Law School

2 F. Supp. 2d 1324 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 22, 1998

In the absence of binding precedent, a court should look to whatever deci-sional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, including decisions of state courts, other … The third step in the qualified immunity analysis is to consider whether a reasonable official could have believed the conduct at issue was lawful under clearly established law.