Case law

Brandon v. Lotter

976 F. Supp. 872 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Sep 2, 1997

did not violate clearly established law. … This being the case, Laux did not violate clearly established law when he failed to immediately arrest Lotter and Nissen or take some other related action, and he is entitled to qualified immunity as a result.

Leach v. New Mexico Junior College

132 N.M. 106 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 2002

Second, we determine whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct. … Defendants have therefore failed to establish their entitlement to qualified immunity.

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Rains Independent School District

865 F. Supp. 375 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Sep 30, 1994

Under the shield of qualified immunity, White cannot be held liable unless Doe’s constitutional rights and White’s duty with respect to those rights were clearly established when the events giving rise to the instant action … Unless White’s duty under this test was clearly established at the time of the events giving rise to this lawsuit, White is entitled to the shield of qualified immunity. See Spann v.

Ex Parte Alabama Dept. of Youth Services

880 So. 2d 393 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Oct 10, 2003

Federal Qualified Immunity Wood argues that he is entitled to federal qualified immunity from the Doe plaintiffs' federal § 1983 claim against him. … "An official is entitled to qualified immunity if he is performing discretionary functions and his actions do `"not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Young v. Akal

985 F. Supp. 2d 785 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Dec 2, 2013

The court’s first inquiry in the examination of a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff has “alleg[ed] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” King v. … Qualified immunity cloaks a police officer from liability if a reasonably competent law enforcement agent would not have known that his actions violated clearly established law. Jackson v.

African Trade & Information Center, Inc., Mohamoud D. Ahmed, and Alan W. Gates v. James F. Abromaitis

294 F.3d 355 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 23, 2002

The First Amendment Claim The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Even if a district court decision could “establish” a right for the purpose of the qualified immunity inquiry, A.F.C.

Sheryl J. Howard v. Jan Dickerson, and Charles Milton, Keith Purdue

34 F.3d 978 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 7, 1994

The Martin court upheld the denial of qualified immunity because Garcia clearly established pretrial detainees share the same protection from deliberate indifference to serious medical needs as convicted inmates. … When a defendant raises the issue of qualified immunity on a summary judgment motion, the plaintiff must demonstrate the alleged conduct constituted a violation of law and the law was clearly established at the time of the

Kennedy v. City of Ridgefield

411 F.3d 1134 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 22, 2005

If Shields’s conduct did not violate Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights, he is entitled to qualified immunity. We now turn to those questions. B. … This doctrine was clearly established by the time the events of this case took place. Accordingly, the trial court’s denial of Shields’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is hereby AFFIRMED.

Williams v. Heard

533 F. Supp. 1153 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 8, 1982

With respect to the second prong, the reasonableness requirement, the court stated that qualified immunity defense is not available where the constitutional right infringed by defendants was clearly established at the time … Applying this to the facts of the case, the Fifth Circuit held that the lower court’s finding of qualified immunity was clearly erroneous because the defendant’s actions were not reasonable.

Craig v. Martin

49 F.4th 404 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 8, 2022

particular conduct violated clearly established law is Darden v. … Moreover, as we have noted before, the plaintiffs’ reliance on the cases above “requires us to assume that Fifth Circuit precedent alone can clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes, something the

Wilcoxon v. City of Detroit Election Commission

301 Mich. App. 619 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 2013

DEFENDANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY UNDER § 4 OF THE MMMA The language of § 4 indicates that a “qualifying patient” who has been issued and possesses a registry *609 identification card is immune from arrest and prosecution … In other words, the language establishing limited immunity in § 4 of the MMMA expressly conditions that immunity on the person possessing no amount of marijuana that does not qualify as usable marijuana under the applicable

Hall v. Ryan

957 F.2d 402 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 28, 1992

The defendants’ summary judgment motion argues that they were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that the law at the time of the incident “did not clearly establish the right to have officers diagnose pre-trial … Judge Baker noted that qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Jones v. McNeese

883 F. Supp. 2d 897 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Jul 5, 2012

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. … Qualified Immunity In resolving Dr. McNeese’s claim of qualified immunity, this court is required to essentially adopt the plaintiffs’ version of the facts, and then to resolve the abstract issue of law.

Trey Sims v. Kenneth Labowitz

885 F.3d 254 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 14, 2018

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or other rights that a reasonable officer would have … clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Front Royal & Warren County Industrial Park Corp. v. Town of Front Royal

708 F. Supp. 1477 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 16, 1989

litigation and, at the same time, they can be held liable for the violation of a clearly established constitutionally-protected right. … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which the official knows or reasonably should be aware.”

Jerome Berry v. Robb Sherman Roger Rutledge Susan Embree James J. Burgess Richard Fongemie, Sgt.

365 F.3d 631 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 22, 2004

However, when an official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known, qualified immunity does not prevent suit by the injured party. … The more critical inquiry for qualified-immunity purposes is whether it was “objectively legally reasonable” for the prison officials to believe that his conduct did not violate the inmate’s clearly established Eighth Amendment

Smith v. Deering

880 F. Supp. 816 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Dec 20, 1994

Defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity which requires the Court to determine whether Defendants violated clearly established Constitutional law. 1. … The test for qualified immunity is “whether a reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.” Anderson v.

Dean Birkeland v. John Jorgenson

971 F.3d 787 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 20, 2020

and killed him–our precedent compels the conclusion that the officers’ use of deadly force in this situation was not a violation of a clearly established right. … established right.”

Doe v. Beard

63 F. Supp. 3d 1159 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 18, 2014

In the alternative, if there was a constitutional violation, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit because the right was not clearly established. (Id. at 14.) 1. … Qualified Immunity Defendants assert qualified immunity as a defense.

Arkansas State Medical Board v. Byers

521 S.W.3d 459 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 8, 2017

To stave off summary judgment on qualified immunity, a civil-rights plaintiff must assert a constitutional violation, demonstrate that the constitutional right is clearly established, and raise a genuine issue of fact … as to whether the official would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right.