Case law

Ramirez v. Webb

835 F.2d 1153 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 23, 1987

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court established that officials are denied qualified immunity only when their alleged acts violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional … Accordingly, defendant INS agents have qualified immunity unless plaintiffs’ “rights were so clearly established when the acts were committed that any officer in the defendant’s position, measured objectively, would have

City of San Juan, Texas, City of San Juan Police Officers, Juan Rodriguez, Alfredo Lara & Severiano Martinez, & City of San Juan Chief of Police Samuel Soto v. Gonzales, Juan R.

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Jun 1, 2000

the officers are entitled to qualified immunity under federal law as their actions in effecting appellee's arrest were lawful in light of clearly established law and the information possessed by the officers at the time … If there is, we determine whether the government official's "actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law," entitling him to qualified immunity. Id .

Swint v. City of Wadley

51 F.3d 988 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 9, 1995

Qualified Immunity Law The district court denied the three individual defendants’ motions for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The denial of qualified immunity is a question of law to be reviewed de novo. … Because such a due process right was not clearly established at the time of the raids in this case, Sheriff Morgan, Chief Morgan and Officer Dendinger are entitled to qualified immunity on the due process claims.

Quintana v. City and County of Denver

District Court, D. Colorado · Jan 22, 2021

Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Defendants Perez and Alexander violated a clearly established right by detaining Plaintiff, she has not met her burden to overcome the defense of qualified immunity. … Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Individual Defendants violated a clearly established right, Plaintiff has not met her burden to overcome the defense of qualified immunity.

Jerome Polenz and Donna Polenz v. Thomas Parrott and Russell Borland

883 F.2d 551 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 22, 1989

For purposes of qualified immunity, it is not enough to assert that a broad or abstract right, such as the right to due process or the right to exclusive use and enjoyment of one’s land, is clearly established. … For example, the qualified immunity question might be whether at the time in question it was clearly established that the alleged constitutional violation could arise from "reckless" rather than "intentional” conduct.

Baptist Health Medical Group, Inc. v. John Mitchell Farmer, M.D.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Nov 15, 2024

both bad faith and actual malice.4 Toler, 458 S.W.3d at 283. 4 We recognize that the term “qualified immunity” often refers to the doctrine of “qualified official immunity,” which is the immunity from tort liability … Farmer also did not show that Baptist Health intended to cause injury to him in violation of his clearly established rights.

Kevin Chestnut v. Officer Dawain Wallace

947 F.3d 1085 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 21, 2020

When Wallace moved for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, a defense that protects an individual defendant from suit when his conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, see White … Wallace’s questioning and detention of Chestnut was not objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. Officer Wallace is thus entitled to qualified immunity.

Allen v. Town of Colcord

874 F. Supp. 2d 1276 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 1, 2012

capacity, and Defendants Creech and Denny do not dispute this in their reply. 98 Plaintiff further states that none of the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as they all violated clearly established Constitutional … qualified immunity context, a plaintiff must allege facts, if assumed to be true, that are sufficient to show that the defendants violated a plaintiffs constitutional rights, and that those rights were clearly established

Watkins v. United States Postal Employee

611 F. App'x 549 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 4, 2015

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for individual government officials performing discretionary functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In considering whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, the court must decide whether the facts alleged show the defendant violated a constitutional right and whether the right was clearly established.

LAURO LINES s.r.l. v. Chasser

490 U.S. 495 · Supreme Court of the United States · May 22, 1989

And claims of qualified immunity may be pursued by immediate appeal, because qualified immunity too “is an immunity from suit.” Id., at 526 (emphasis in original). … S., at 524 , and held that the immunity from service of process defendant asserted did not amount to an immunity from suit — even though service was essential to the trial court’s jurisdiction over the defendant.

Weigand v. Spadt

317 F. Supp. 2d 1129 · District Court, D. Nebraska · May 12, 2004

DISCUSSION “ ‘Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Yowell v. … Stated another way, qualified immunity shields a defendant from suit if he or she could have reasonably believed his or her conduct to be lawful “in light of clearly established law and the information [that the defendant

Brenda Davis v. Michelle L. Munger

11 F.4th 604 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 24, 2021

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity unless: (1) their conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established. Williams v. … Qualified immunity is “appropriate where no reasonable fact finder could conclude that the facts when viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff show that the officers’ conduct violated a clearly established constitutional

Kennedy v. Dexter Consolidated Schools

124 N.M. 764 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Apr 2, 1998

They are entitled to a “qualified immunity,” which relieves them of liability if “their conduct [did] not violate clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … of the search was “clearly established” at the time of the search. (42) Based on the above analysis, three of the individual Defendants have no qualified immunity with respect to the search of Crystal Kennedy.

Patricia Juanita Wate v. Kenneth Kubler

839 F.3d 1012 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 12, 2016

force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, that was clearly established at the time. … Qualified Immunity AQualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages for torts committed while performing discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory

Jacoby Garrett v. Harold Clarke

74 F.4th 579 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 25, 2023

“Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal-capacity liability for civil damages under § 1983, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Therefore, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless “(1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time

Román Meléndez v. Inclán

641 F. Supp. 998 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 9, 1986

immunity test requires a two part analysis: 1) whether the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right “clearly established” at the time of the violation, and 2) whether the government official asserting the qualified … In the present case, defendant makes no argument in support of his claim for a qualified immunity that the law prohibiting patronage dismissals was not clearly established.

Randle v. Tregre

147 F. Supp. 3d 581 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Dec 2, 2015

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity, asserted by all of the defendants, if established, precludes li'ability'for damages on all of plaintiffs federal law claims against defendants in their .individual capacities … of the defendants was objectively unreasonable in light of .clearly established law.”

Garrett Brock Trapnell v. George Ralston J.A. O'Brien Joseph Petrowkey and A.W. Bayles

819 F.2d 182 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 18, 1987

On the other hand, if a defendant’s conduct 1 violated clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known, the defendant is not shielded by qualified immunity. … Accordingly, appellants are shielded by qualified immunity from the burden of defending appellee’s procedural due process claim.

Kathleen Meehan v. Officer Scott Thompson

763 F.3d 936 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 14, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability insofar as their conduct in performing discretionary functions “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Meehan asserts that Thompson is not entitled to qualified immunity because he violated her clearly established Fourth Amendment rights in two ways: first by arresting her without a reasonable belief that she was intoxicated

Deanna Copeland v. Lucas Wicks, Defendant/Respondent.

Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 2015

To determine whether the detective is entitled to qualified immunity, we ask (1) whether the mother’s allegations make out a deprivation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the … Qualified immunity generally turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the official’s action, assessed in light of the clearly established legal rules in place when the action was taken. Burk, 948 F.3d at 494.