Case law

Koch v. Rugg

221 F.3d 1283 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 11, 2000

clearly established law." … violate clearly established law.").

Rhein v. Coffman

118 F. Supp. 3d 1093 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 6, 2015

Coffman also is correct that even if his post-revocation conduct violated Rhein’s due process rights, he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law. I. … clearly established law.

Jayne Swinford v. Joshua Santos

121 F.4th 179 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 4, 2024

We now assess whether this video footage established that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. 10 10 Mrs. … immunity, and we end our qualified immunity analysis.

Tiffanie Hupp v. State Trooper Seth Cook

931 F.3d 307 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 25, 2019

“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 … An official is not entitled to qualified immunity if he or she deprived an individual of a constitutional right and that right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 231.

Hart v. Miller

609 N.W.2d 138 · South Dakota Supreme Court · Apr 19, 2000

To find whether qualified immunity applies, the test is to ask if the officer’s conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable officer would have known at the time. Harlow v. … the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken.

Dugas v. Jefferson County

931 F. Supp. 1315 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Jun 21, 1996

Underlying Policy and Principles of Analysis The doctrine of qualified immunity affords protection against individual liability for civil damages to officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The seminal qualified immunity decision, Harlow v.

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.

Salvatore Palma, Jr. v. Matthew Johns

27 F.4th 419 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 28, 2022

Clearly Established Having found that there were constitutional violations, we turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry—whether that constitutional right was clearly established.6 As a starting … Officer Johns’s assertion of qualified immunity obligated the Palmas to explain why Officer Johns’s conduct— either the tasing or the shooting—violated clearly established law. See Jacobs v.

Sandra T.E. v. Grindle

599 F.3d 583 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 17, 2010

Grindle moved for summary judgment, claiming she was entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs had failed to estab- lish a violation of a clearly established right. … If they do, we ask whether the violated right was “clearly established” at the time of alleged violation. If so, the official is not entitled to qualified immunity from suit. See Michael C. v.

Hudgins v. City Of Ashburn

890 F.2d 396 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 24, 1990

The Zeigler/Rich Analysis for Determining Summary Judgment Based on Qualified Immunity 29 Rich recognized that the Supreme Court established its objective-reasonableness test for determining qualified or good-faith immunity … or not that law is clearly established.

Culver v. Armstrong

832 F.3d 1213 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 9, 2016

For our purpose, “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . … To answer the probable cause inquiry posed by the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity standard in this case, we need look no further than Wyoming Supreme Court cases construing Wyo. Stat.

WVDHHR v. V.P.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 21, 2019

In the proceedings below and on appeal, the Guardians assert that the DHHR Petitioners are precluded from relying on qualified immunity protections because the DHHR Petitioners violated a clearly established right. … established constitutional or statutory right, and no basis for piercing the DHHR Petitioners’ qualified immunity exists.

Herbert L. Board v. Karl Farnham, Jr.

394 F.3d 469 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 5, 2005

The Boards also claim that the constitutional right to oral hygiene supplies was clearly established at the time of the alleged violations, which would preclude a holding that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity … to qualified immunity on this claim.

Jerry Hollingsworth and Kenneth Anderson v. Kim Hackler, Individually and as Next Friend for C. H., a Minor, and Steve Hackler, Individually and as Next Friend for C. H., a Minor

Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · Dec 31, 2009

of qualified immunity shields an official performing discretionary functions from individual liability for civil damages under § 1983 if the official’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … ’s conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.18 A right is “clearly established” when its contours are “sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing

Gibbons v. McBride

124 F. Supp. 3d 1342 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Aug 21, 2015

Thus, “[i]f a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court should grant qualified immunity if the plaintiffs complaint fails to allege a violation of a clearly established … established for purposes of qualified immunity); Riley v.

Schubert v. City of Rye

775 F. Supp. 2d 689 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2011

A government official may be entitled to qualified immunity if either his “conduct did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights or if it would have been objectively reasonable for the official to believe that his … “A defendant pleading qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss is entitled to prevail if the allegations in the complaint fail to state a claim of violation of clearly established law.” Id.

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.

Amaro v. New Mexico Corrections Department

District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 16, 2022

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Once a defendant has asserted a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (2) the right was “clearly established” at the time

Randall R. Bradford v. Mike Huckabee

330 F.3d 1038 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 5, 2003

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity in suits against them in their individual capacity as long as their actions do not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, to be upheld in a motion to dismiss only when the immunity can be established on the face of the complaint.

Finch v. Wemlinger

310 N.W.2d 66 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Sep 11, 1981

In Scheuer the Court defined qualified immunity in these words: [I]n varying scope, a qualified immunity is available to officers of the executive branch of government, the variation being dependent upon the scope of discretion … We will continue to apply the federal standard of qualified immunity in actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought in state court. The burden of pleading the defense of qualified immunity rests with defendants, Gomez v.