Case law

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Hardesty v. City of Ecorse

623 F. Supp. 2d 855 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jun 1, 2009

Therefore, if the plaintiff fails to establish either of the two requirements set forth in Saucier, then qualified immunity applies. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . In January 2009, in Pearson v. … Thus, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Second, even if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, qualified immunity applies unless the right was clearly established. Id.

Parker v. Blackwell

23 F.4th 517 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 13, 2022

Sheriff Blackwell asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … A plaintiff seeking to defeat qualified immunity must show that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct. Morgan v.

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.

Olaniyi v. District of Columbia

416 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 17, 2006

However, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … “The threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether [the] plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.” Hope v.

Julian C. Lee v. Jake Gregory, United States of America, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation

363 F.3d 931 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 7, 2004

Gregory moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … Although the facts in Mendocino Environmental Center are different from the facts in issue here, “[a]n officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel

Gooden v. Howard County

954 F.2d 960 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 23, 1992

Gooden further argues that the defendants did not act reasonably in light of clearly established law. … However, “if the test of ‘clearly established law’ were to be applied at this level of generality,”....