Case law

Kenneth Hunt v. Dale Acosta

109 F.4th 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 23, 2024

The district court denied qualified and quasi-judicial immunity for Officer Acosta and qualified immunity for Mayor Williams and Chief Wilson. … Qualified Immunity Interlocutory review of the denial of qualified immunity is limited to “the purely legal issue of whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff are a violation of clearly established law.”

Mehta v. Foskey

877 F. Supp. 2d 1367 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Jun 29, 2012

The defense of qualified immunity “turns on the objective legal reason *1376 ableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.” Anderson v. … immunity because they did not violate clearly established law.

Paul Thompson, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia

878 F.3d 89 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 18, 2017

Thompson’s Eighth Amendment claim on qualified immunity grounds. … Under the second prong of qualified immunity, even if an official has violated an inmate’s constitutional right, he is still entitled to immunity if the right was not so “clearly established” that “a reasonable official

McGee v. Snyder

326 Ill. App. 3d 343 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 7, 2001

Qualified Immunity Finally, defendants contend that, insofar as plaintiffs seek to recover damages, their claims are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing that defendants’ conduct violated any clearly established right; therefore, we hold that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in the present case. III.

Mckinney v. Dekalb County

997 F.2d 1440 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1993

Baldwin County Bd. of Educ., 908 F.2d 1499 , 1509 (11th Cir.1990). 6 The issue on this appeal of a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is a purely legal one: first, whether there was a clearly established … a claim of violation of clearly established law.

Egolf v. Witmer

526 F.3d 104 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 22, 2008

The court granted immunity on the basis that the constitutional rights were not “clearly established” in the circumstances of this case. This appeal followed. … Qualified immunity turns on the “objective legal reasonableness of the action ... assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time.” Anderson v.

Cheyenne Johnson v. Mount Pleasant Pub. Schs.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 30, 2025

So, unless Johnson has stated a legally viable claim of a violation of a clearly established right, with supporting precedent, Russell is entitled to qualified immunity. … He did not raise a “clearly established” argument at all, nor did he argue any aspect of qualified immunity based on X.M.’s facts.

Charles McManemy v. Bruce Tierney

970 F.3d 1034 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 17, 2020

In an appeal from a summary-judgment ruling on qualified immunity, we typically credit the plaintiff’s version of the facts. See id. at 378. … See Blazek, 761 F.3d at 925 (holding that jerking a non-resisting suspect from the floor to his bed after he was handcuffed and posed no threat violated clearly established law); Krout, 583 F.3d at 566 (“It was clearly established

Jones v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

971 F. Supp. 2d 648 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Oct 3, 2013

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Thus, in evaluating a claim of qualified immunity, courts consider (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged

Kinney v. Weaver

367 F.3d 337 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 24, 2002

Not long after Harlow , the Court refined the qualified immunity standard by defining “clearly established” in a way that encompasses the “objective reasonableness” inquiry: To be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified … Yet, at the same time, an official does not lose qualified immunity merely because a certain right is clearly established in the abstract.

Barnes v. LAPORTE COUNTY

621 F. Supp. 2d 642 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 7, 2008

In determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, a plaintiff must first allege the deprivation of an actual constitutional right that is clearly established. Doyle v. … Shuter may or may not be entitled to qualified immunity, but Shuter has failed to adequately establish that qualified immunity exists as a basis for dismissal. 4 Shuter’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. [Doc. No. 18.].

JaQuan Bradford v. Ilona Avery

855 F.3d 890 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 1, 2017

The district court decided that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because Bradford could "not prove and has not produced any evidence that defendants should have been aware of a breach of a clearly established … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability unless "the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right" and "that right was clearly established

Marine Maria Quives v. Rick Campbell and Jedd Blessing

934 F.2d 668 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 1, 1991

The court held that the defendants are entitled to. qualified immunity because “Campbell and other state officials could not reasonably be charged with knowledge that they might be violatr ing a clearly established right … the constitutional issues,” “[e]oncluding that the asserted federal statutory rights were clearly and particularly established at the time of the alleged wrongs....”

Richard Crouse v. Town of Moncks Corner

848 F.3d 576 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 15, 2017

Because the first two prongs of the test are questions of law, an employer is entitled to qualified immunity if either prong cannot be resolved under clearly established law. … To defeat a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Langley v. Adams County

987 F.2d 1473 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 3, 1993

Once a defendant asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, “[t]he plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was clearly established.” [Pueblo Neighborhood Health Ctrs., Inc. v.] … Plaintiff has thus met her burden of showing clearly established law governing her First Amendment claim. Defendants assert two factual bases for their qualified immunity defense.

Mercado-Gracia v. United States

District Court, D. New Mexico · May 14, 2024

Petitioner therefore asks the Court to dismiss the firearm charge as unproven as a matter of established federal law. Pet at 5-7. … Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 390 (2000) (“It is past question that the rule set forth in Strickland qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.’”).

Falyn Bruce v. Derek Guernsey

777 F.3d 872 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 26, 2015

Qualified immunity is available when a defendant’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu- No. 14-1352 13  tional rights of which a reasonable … Thus, even when an officer lacks probable cause, he is still entitled to qualified immunity when a reasonable officer “could have reasonably believed that probable cause existed in light of well- established law.” Id.

Chiu v. Plano Independent School District

339 F.3d 273 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 16, 2003

However, the qualified immunity doctrine only protects officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Objective Reasonableness Although Davis and Criswell violated Kirke and Johnson’s clearly established rights, they are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if they can show that their actions were objectively

Rivera-Jimenez v. Pierluisi

362 F.3d 87 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 29, 2004

Qualified Immunity "Denials of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds are reviewed to the extent that the qualified immunity defense turns upon a purely legal question and any disputed … We turn now to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. "The question of whether a right is clearly established is an issue of law for the court to decide."

Lodato v. Ortiz

314 F. Supp. 2d 379 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 16, 2004

established right, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is inappropriate in this case. … determine whether the alleged constitutional right is clearly established.