Case law

Louise Arnold v. Charles McClinton

112 F.4th 598 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 14, 2024

“In a § 1983 action, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless: (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established.” Ching ex rel. Jordan v. … In these circumstances, we conclude that Deputy McClinton is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct in this case did not violate McDaniel’s clearly established rights. See Plumhoff v.

Baltas v. Chapdelaine

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 3, 2025

DISCUSSION Plaintiffs argue that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated clearly established law. … Our caselaw does not clearly establish that a few hours without a flushing toilet violates the Eighth Amendment, so we affirm the grant of qualified immunity as to these claims. C.

Zaher Zahrey v. Martin E. Coffey

221 F.3d 342 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 20, 2000

not clearly established in 1996. … Anderson instructs, however, that for a right to be clearly established for purposes of a qualified immunity defense, the precise conduct at issue need not previously have been ruled unlawful.

Flores v. City of Palacios

270 F. Supp. 2d 865 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 30, 2003

The Court first determines whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. If not, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … Because Flores has alleged violations of clearly established law, the Court moves to the next step in the qualified immunity analysis: judging the reasonableness of the alleged behavior. See Hayter, 154 F.3d at 274 .

Cameron County v. Alvarado

900 S.W.2d 874 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Jun 22, 1995

We address the trial court’s denial of summary judgment of the deputies’ qualified immunity defense and the County’s sovereign immunity defense based on the deputies’ qualified immunity claim. … "Qualified immunity” is one of several interchangeable terms (including “quasi-judicial immunity," "discretionary immunity,” "official immunity,” and "good faith immunity”) used to refer to an affirmative defense available

Bledsoe v. Willis

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 27, 2023

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity “if there is no violation, or if the conduct did not violate law clearly established at the time.” Id. … Nov. 16, 2022) (rejecting the qualified immunity defense regarding clearly established law for § 1983 malicious prosecution claims); Crider v. Williams, No. 21-13797, 2022 WL 3867541, at *8 (11th Cir.

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

Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach

329 F.3d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 19, 2003

He posits a novel twist to the “clearly established” inquiry, contending that because it is not clearly established that damages may be obtained under § 1983 for an unlawful traffic stop, qualified immunity should apply. … Rather, in determining whether qualified immunity is available, those cases merely inquire whether the right at issue was clearly established in law.

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

Wishnatsky v. Bergquist

550 N.W.2d 394 · North Dakota Supreme Court · May 29, 1996

The Court summarized the application of qualified immunity in this context: Our cases establish that qualified immunity shields agents Hunter and Jordan from suit for damages if “a reasonable officer could have believed [ … Bryant’s arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.”

Stoudemire v. Michigan Department of Corrections

22 F. Supp. 3d 715 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · May 15, 2014

Under 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 statutory … In evaluating whether a constitutional right was clearly established, “[t]he key determination is whether a defendant moving for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds was on notice that [her] alleged actions were

Roska v. Sneddon

311 F. Supp. 2d 1307 · District Court, D. Utah · Mar 26, 2004

At the same time, however, “where the right is clearly established, a defendant should only ‘rarely’ be able to succeed with a qualified immunity defense.” … was “clearly established.”

Barbara Marks v. Wanda Hudson

933 F.3d 481 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 8, 2019

They also argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because the “nebulous” rights on which the plaintiffs rely are not clearly established, nor were their actions objectively unreasonable. … Ashcroft-Smith, 922 F.3d 320, 322 n.1 (5th Cir. 2019), they cannot be the source of clearly established law for qualified immunity analysis.

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.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 7, 1993

The court framed the qualified immunity issue as being "whether minor school children suspected of being victims of child abuse had, [at the relevant time] a clearly established right to be free from questioning and visual … The court found no such clearly established right, and found, therefore that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and were therefore not liable.

Hunt v. Sapien

480 F. Supp. 2d 1271 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 29, 2007

No Clearly Established Law Even if Mr. … Hunt had established a constitutional violation sufficient to overcome the first prong of qualified immunity, he has not shown that the right was clearly established at the time he was placed in administrative segregation

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.

Matthews v. City of New York

889 F. Supp. 2d 418 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 5, 2012

Moreover, “ ‘[e]ven where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was ‘objectively reasonable … As noted supra, “the qualified immunity inquiry turns on whether the defendants’ actions were objectively reasonable under clearly established law; and the clearly established law of excessive force itself hinges on the reasonableness

O'Donnell v. Knott

283 F. Supp. 3d 286 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 2017

qualified immunity because the complaint does not plausibly allege that they violated Plaintiff's clearly established First Amendment rights. … In sum, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a violation of her clearly established constitutional rights. Accordingly, the detectives' qualified immunity defense will be denied, without prejudice. 10 C.

Archer v. Chisholm

191 F. Supp. 3d 932 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · May 26, 2016

She is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the plaintiff plausibly pleads that she violated a constitutional right, and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Qualified immunity—validity of warrant Turning to qualified immunity, again, to overcome qualified immunity the plaintiff must plausibly allege that the defendants violated a constitutional right, and that the right was clearly