Case 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.

Baldwin v. Estherville

333 F. Supp. 3d 817 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Sep 14, 2018

In those jurisdictions, there cannot be liability unless the defendant violated "clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … In my prior ruling, as to qualified immunity to the federal constitutional clam, I concluded that it was not clearly established that Baldwin's conduct-operating his ATV in a ditch that was publicly-owned property-did not

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).

Gidley v. Oliveri

641 F. Supp. 2d 92 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jun 25, 2009

The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the booking-and-summons of Gidley did not implicate a clearly established Fourth Amendment right such that a reasonable … Clearly established right “Public officials are ... entitled to qualified immunity unless the facts establish that their conduct violated a constitutional right that was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.

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.

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.

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.

Reeves v. Thigpen

879 F. Supp. 1153 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 16, 1995

Under this test, public officials performing discretionary functions which would objectively appear to be within the official’s authority have qualified immunity if their challenged conduct did not violate a clearly established … To defeat a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the “legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions or, ... the law clearly

Jenne v. Maranto

825 So. 2d 409 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 21, 2002

Section 216(b), in turn, clearly provides for suits by individuals against States. … Accordingly, the reasoning that underlies the immediate appealability of an order denying ... qualified immunity should be...

Almonte v. City Of Long Beach

478 F.3d 100 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 14, 2007

Qualified Immunity Based on the "Policymaker Exception" 24 The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials from personal liability for official actions, "unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional … Stated differently, an official is entitled to qualified immunity (1) if the plaintiff has not alleged a violation of a constitutional right, (2) if that right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct, or (3

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.

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

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

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.

Ellis v. Vance

227 F. Supp. 3d 627 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jan 3, 2017

As discussed below, plaintiffs failure to offer more specific authority means that she is unable to establish the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test, but it also makes it exceedingly difficult for … This court now turns to the second, or “clearly established,” prong of the qualified immunity standard. The U.S.

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.

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.

Kauffman v. Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

766 F. Supp. 2d 555 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2011

Pertinent to qualified immunity, a defendant may raise an affirmative defense “on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion if the predicate establishing the defense is apparent from the face of the complaint.” Bethel v. … Second, “if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

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