Case law

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.”

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

Webb v. Haas

665 A.2d 1005 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 10, 1995

Haas contends that he is protected from the Webbs’ action by the doctrine of qualified immunity pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 8 because he has not violated a clearly established right of the Webbs’. … Pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity, “ ‘government officials performing discretionary functions[] generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

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.

Chanon Miller v. Juan Ramirez

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 27, 2025

conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … immunity “raised . . . on a motion to dismiss . . . will be granted if the com- plaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitu- tional right.” 248 F.3d 1117, 1121 (11th Cir. 2001

Keli Calderone v. City of Chicago

979 F.3d 1156 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 5, 2020

has not clearly established that right. … Qualified Immunity Public officials enjoy immunity from civil liability for con- duct that “[1] does not violate [2] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Moore v. Hayman

67 Ohio App. 3d 184 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 1990

principle purposes for the adoption of the qualified immunity standard as articulated in Harlow, supra. … Due to the fact that no clearly established constitutionalrightwas violated, therefore shielding the appellees with qualified immunity, appellants' issues two (2), three (3) and four (4) become irrelevant.

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 ... .

Harris v. Mississippi Valley State Univ.

873 So. 2d 970 · Mississippi Supreme Court · May 13, 2004

The test for qualified immunity is two fold, with the threshold question being whether the plaintiff has suffered a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity depends on the "objective reasonableness of the action" assessed in light of the legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time it was taken.'

Sean Smith v. Peter Gilchrist, III

749 F.3d 302 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 14, 2014

(explaining that to survive a qualified-immunity claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate the “violation . . . of a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known” (internal … Kennedy, 349 F.3d 731, 742 n.6 (4th Cir. 2003) (holding that when officers violated rights that were clearly established, officers were not entitled to public officers’ immunity from North

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.

Burl W. Everman v. Lesa G. Robinson

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Dec 6, 2024

As to qualified official immunity, Deputy Everman asserts that the act of parking his police vehicle at the accident scene constituted a discretionary act, which is protected by qualified official immunity. … The issue is whether qualified official immunity applies to bar a negligence claim if one could be established. -10-  ....

Carman v. City of Eden Prairie

622 F. Supp. 963 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Nov 27, 1985

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense which shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Fair-view is thus entitled to qualified immunity because its conduct did not violate any of plaintiff’s clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

DiStiso ex rel. DiStiso v. Cook

691 F.3d 226 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 21, 2012

The Qualified Immunity Defense Qualified immunity shields “government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … immunity because no such rule of law was clearly established at times relevant to plaintiffs claim.

Barr v. Abrams

641 F. Supp. 547 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 7, 1986

But in any event, all his actions in his official capacity are protected by the qualified (or good faith) immunity which bars a damage action against him unless his conduct “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional … But in any case, my ruling on the question of immunity does not turn on the correctness of Justice Sayah’s ruling. The question is rather whether there was “clearly established” law upholding Barr’s position.

James Spann v. George Lombardi

65 F.4th 987 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 24, 2023

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment unless a plaintiff presents sufficient evidence to show that the official violated a clearly established right of the plaintiff. … The officials argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Spann’s due process claim, because Spann had no clearly established liberty interest in avoiding assignment to administrative segregation.

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

Cruz v. Cervantez

96 F.4th 806 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 20, 2024

As for the second prong, “qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Jury Instructions add an “objective unreasonableness” element into the clearly-established-law prong of the qualified immunity analysis, they do not accurately reflect the law.

Bell v. City of Cleveland

548 F. Supp. 2d 444 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 19, 2008

In other words, any “objectively reasonable” action by a state officer, as assessed in the light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct at issue, will be protected by qualified immunity. … and 2) that the right violated was clearly established.

Buchanan v. Ford

638 F. Supp. 168 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 19, 1986

If an official establishes “the objective reasonableness of [his] conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law,” he can have summary judgment. Id. … Plaintiff has not cited a different “clearly established” legal standard by which to evaluate defendant’s conduct.