Case law

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.

Linda Surratt v. Brian McClarin

851 F.3d 389 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 14, 2017

EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, Circuit Judge: In this qualified immunity case, the question on appeal is whether—in light of clearly established law at the time of the incident—officers acted objectively unreasonably when they … But qualified immunity insulates those government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

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.

Summer Gorman v. State of Mississippi

892 F.3d 172 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 6, 2018

“‘Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. … To defeat qualified immunity in a Fourth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must demonstrate both a bona fide Fourth Amendment violation on the facts alleged and that the violation was clearly established

Steven Lefemine v. Dan Wideman

672 F.3d 292 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 5, 2012

WIDEMAN district court held that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from suit in their individual capacities because the specific rights at issue were not clearly established at the time of the violations. … The doctrine of qualified immunity "protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their con- duct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu- tional rights of which a reasonable

Lauren Graham v. C. Gagnon

831 F.3d 176 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 27, 2016

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The shield of qualified immunity is lost when a government official (1) violates a constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established. See, e.g., Merchant, 677 F.3d at 661.

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

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.

Nelson v. Turner

256 S.W.3d 37 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Jun 6, 2008

She argued that under these circumstances, she was entitled to qualified official immunity from liability. … , but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action occurred.

Palmer v. Johnson

193 F.3d 346 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 19, 1999

The bifurcated test for qualified immunity asks whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established right and, if so, whether the defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonable. … Thus, for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis, Palmer has demonstrated a violation of his clearly established rights under the Eighth Amendment.

Baljinder Singh SANGHA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent

103 F.3d 1482 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 9, 1997

This section gives the Attorney General the discretion to grant asylum to aliens who qualify as “refugees.” … Applicants can no longer establish that their persecution was “on account of’ political opinion by inference, unless the inference is one that is clearly to be drawn from facts in evidence.

Elder v. Holloway

975 F.2d 1388 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 17, 1992

In opposition to the officers' motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity, Elder proffered three out-of-state cases to show that the law was clearly established that a warrant was required to make a "constructive entry … Supreme Court's recent approach to qualified immunity.

Donald Gravelet-Blondin v. Sgt Jeff Shelton

728 F.3d 1086 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 6, 2013

Qualified Immunity Even so, Sgt. Shelton is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The court granted qualified immunity, however, finding that the law in 2004 was not sufficiently well-established to have alerted officers that this use of force was unconstitutional.

Rodriguez Vazquez v. Lopez-Martinez

253 F. Supp. 2d 164 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 21, 2003

The Defendants raised the issue of their qualified immunity in the Answer to the Complaint (affirmative defense). 2. The Defendants had the burden to prove their affirmative defense of qualified immunity. 3. … The law on politically motivated terminations is clearly established. 6.

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.

Volpi v. Center Moriches Union Free School District

9 F. Supp. 3d 255 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 24, 2014

Qualified immunity protects an official from civil liability if their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Taravella v. … When evaluating whether qualified immunity applies, the court must engage in a two-part inquiry: 1) whether the constitutional right has been violated; and 2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the

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.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 10, 2001

The test for the applicability of qualified immunity turns upon the "objective legal reasonableness of the action," assessed in light of legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time the action was taken. … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.

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.

Duerscherl v. Foley

681 F. Supp. 1364 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jun 25, 1987

If Foley was not entitled to absolute immunity, he would certainly be entitled to qualified immunity. … Failure to show that the asserted interest is protected by the due process clause essentially establishes the defense of qualified immunity. 3 .