Case law

Florance v. Buchmeyer

500 F. Supp. 2d 618 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 31, 2007

To determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the threshold question is whether, on the facts as alleged by plaintiff, a clearly established constitutional right would have been violated. … In addressing a claim of qualified immunity, a court must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, which is a purely legal question. Siegert v.

Joseph Jones v. City of Jackson, Malcolm McMillin and Les Tannehill

203 F.3d 875 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 20, 2000

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The first inquiry in examining a defense of qualified immunity asserted in a motion for summary judgment is whether the plaintiff has alleged “the violation of a clearly established constitutional right … of the clearly established legal rules.

Blackmon v. Sutton

734 F.3d 1237 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 8, 2013

True, qualified immunity is strong stuff: the defense shields public officials from suit as long as their conduct didn’t infringe any legal rights clearly established at the time. See Camretta v. Greene, 131 S. … Conduct that violates the clearly established rights of convicts necessarily violates the clearly established rights of pretrial detainees.

Carol J. Applewhite v. United States Air Force, Randall L. Faulkner, Leonard Ross, and William E. McBride

995 F.2d 997 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 10, 1993

The said officers moved for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, contending that their acts did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional right of Mrs. … It is now well established that a law-enforcement official is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Daryl L. Davis v. Calzona Hall, Ex-Director, St. Louis County Department of Justice Services, in His Individual Capacity Dora B. Schriro, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections, in Her Individual Capacity Robert A. Meechum, Lieutenant Jacqueline D. Young St. Louis County Brian Goeke Larry Wilson Susan Martin Stacy Breedon John Prier Travis Clyburn, Barbara Knell Rebecca Atterberry, Pat Roll, Daryl L. Davis v. Calzona Hall, Ex-Director, St. Louis County Department of Justice Services, in His Individual Capacity Dora B. Schriro, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections, in Her Individual Capacity Robert A. Meechum, Lieutenant Jacqueline D. Young St. Louis County Brian Goeke Larry Wilson, Susan Martin Stacy Breedon John Prier Travis Clyburn, Barbara Knell Rebecca Atterberry Pat Roll, Daryl L. Davis v. Calzona Hall, Ex-Director, St. Louis County Department of Justice Services, in His Individual Capacity Dora B. Schriro, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections, in Her Individual Capacity Robert A. Meechum, Lieutenant Jacqueline D. Young St. Louis County Brian Goeke Larry Wilson, Susan Martin Stacy Breedon John Prier Travis Clyburn Barbara Knell Rebecca Atterberry Pat Roll

375 F.3d 703 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 21, 2004

alleged deprivation of a recognized constitutional right, that this right was clearly established, and that outstanding questions of fact preclude summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity as to state defendants … Clearly Established 59 The second question that we must ask in our qualified immunity analysis is whether the constitutional right alleged to have been violated was clearly established.

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

Slone v. Lincoln County

242 F. Supp. 3d 579 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Mar 16, 2017

Generally, a government official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity and is shielded from civil suit if his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … whether that right was clearly established at the time of the offense.

Kenneth Bailey v. Shawn T. Swindell

940 F.3d 1295 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 16, 2019

,” and qualified immunity applies. … established’ step of the qualified-immunity analysis.”

Herman Harris v. Zachary Pittman

927 F.3d 266 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 18, 2019

that right was not clearly established with the requisite specificity at the time of the incident. … immunity because that right was not "clearly established" with sufficient specificity at the time of the incident.

Cameron County v. Alvarado

900 S.W.2d 874 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Jun 22, 1995

We address the trial court’s denial of summary judgment of the deputies’ qualified immunity defense and the County’s sovereign immunity defense based on the deputies’ qualified immunity claim. … "Qualified immunity” is one of several interchangeable terms (including “quasi-judicial immunity," "discretionary immunity,” "official immunity,” and "good faith immunity”) used to refer to an affirmative defense available

City of Corinth v. Gladys

916 S.W.2d 618 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 14, 1996

Fairfield filed an original answer asserting his affirmative defense of qualified or official immunity. … The City argues that the establishment of Fairfield’s qualified immunity protects the City from liability that may exist under section 101.021(2) of the Texas Tort Claims Act, which provides governmental liability for “personal

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.

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.

Joseph D. Leeks v. Lowell K. Cunningham, Mr. Carson P. Bass Joseph A. Kemper M. Press

997 F.2d 1330 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 18, 1993

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the-denial of qualified immunity, finding that as of 1980 it was “unequivocal” that the law as to the forced medication of a pretrial detainee was clearly established. Id. at 688 . … Thus, in assessing appellant’s qualified immunity claim, our concern is whether statutory or case law existed in July 1989 to clearly establish that a county jail pretrial detainee had a right under the Due Process Clause

Marshall v. Russell

391 F. Supp. 3d 672 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 20, 2018

Russell alleged he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. ECF No. 55 at 32-34. Sgt. … Qualified immunity.

Marshall v. Switzer

900 F. Supp. 604 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 4, 1995

Accordingly, in order to establish the defense of qualified immunity, an official “must satisfy one of two tests: either that his conduct did not violate ‘clearly established’ rights of which a reasonable person would have … Absent a violation of a “clearly established” right, an official is entitled to summary judgment based upon qualified immunity. See, e.g., Richardson v. Selsky, 5 F.3d 616, 621 (2d Cir.1993).

Cullen Reed Peppers v. Bobby F. Coates, Jr., Buster Williams

887 F.2d 1493 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 13, 1989

immunity, defendant must establish that plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine issue of fact material to the qualified immunity defense. 7 In Mitchell , *1497 the Court stated that in resolving a claim for qualified immunity … ’s commission of acts in violation of plaintiff’s clearly established rights.

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

Oldridge v. Wichita, Kansas, City of

District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 30, 2022

While an issue of fact as to whether it was reasonably foreseeable that these actions would lead to a violation of Plaintiff’s clearly established rights, qualified immunity requires a plaintiff to prove more than a reasonably … Plaintiff has failed to show under a qualified immunity analysis that Givens, Salcido, and Ramsay violated a clearly established constitutional right.