Case law

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.

Shows v. Morgan

40 F. Supp. 2d 1345 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 17, 1999

Where the law that the defendants allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the alleged offense, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See id. at 807 , 102 S.Ct. at 2732 ; Stewart v. … established, and (3) where the qualified immunity determination does end the whole case,” Lewis does not prohibit the. court from first considering a qualified-immunity defense).

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.

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.

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

Jones v. State

166 P.3d 1219 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 17, 2007

of a clearly established constitutional right. … ] Once the defendant asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right in order to survive summary judgment. [23] Jones claims the individual defendants

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.

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.

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.

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.

Robert Aaron Peterson v. Officer Michael Kopp

754 F.3d 594 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 11, 2014

Government officials, including police officers, are entitled to qualified immunity, shielding them from liability, “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which … We analyze qualified immunity in two steps: (1) “whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged . . . make out a violation of a constitutional right”; and (2) “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time

Miles v. Rich

576 F. App'x 394 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 31, 2014

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials acting within their discretionary authority are immune from civil liability for damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights … The test for qualified immunity is twofold: (1) “whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right;” and (2) “whether the defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light

McClennon v. Kipke

821 F. Supp. 2d 1101 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Oct 31, 2011

Seizing on Chambers, the Individual Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity here because (1) McClennon suffered only de minimis injuries and (2) it was not clearly established on December 20, 2006, that inflicting … to qualified immunity on the excessive-force claim.

Baptiste v. Foster, NHAG, et al.

2017 DNH 098 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · May 25, 2017

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in this case unless the rights Baptiste asserts were clearly established by December of 2014 when the search occurred.

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.

Thomas Howell v. Town of Ball

827 F.3d 515 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 1, 2016

Regarding the second prong of qualified immunity analysis, “a defendant cannot be said to have violated a clearly established right unless the right’s contours were sufficiently definite that any reasonable official in the … The court ultimately concluded that the Board defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time Howell was fired, it was not clearly established whether his involvement in the FBI investigation was protected

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

Jones v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

873 F.3d 1123 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 20, 2017

Clearly Established Law - Because defendants may have committed constitutional violations, we turn to the second element of' qualified immunity: whether there was clearly established law. Defendants rely on Brooks v. … qualified immunity).

Texas Department of Criminal Justice v. Cooke

149 S.W.3d 700 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jul 1, 2004

The Department urges that immunity has not been waived because Johnson has failed to establish by his pleadings and the evidence that he was denied the job because of his race. … Although the Department believes that Johnson was clearly not qualified for the position and that, therefore, he had no prima facie case and necessarily pleaded fraudulently that he was qualified, for the reasons already

Sheck Mulbah v. Cody Jansen

55 F.4th 1164 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 22, 2022

The district court found a genuine dispute of material fact about whether there was probable cause to stop the van and also found the law governing the stop was clearly established. … Similarly, to determine whether Jansen violated clearly established law, we need to know what happened.