Case law

Trackwell v. County of Lancaster

Nebraska Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 2020

The trial court found that Kelly and Lacey had qualified immunity against Trackwell’s § 1983 claim because he did not demonstrate the deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right. … To survive a summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity grounds, a plaintiff must assert a violation of a constitutional right, show that this right is clearly established, and raise an issue of material fact as

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).

Dickey v. United States of America

174 F. Supp. 3d 366 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2016

However, qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability where their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Defendants argue that “the true test for qualified immunity in this case was whether it was clearly established that Officer Alexander was prohibited from alleged touching or manipulating

Teri Dean v. Anne Precythe

79 F.4th 986 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 23, 2023

The availability of qualified immunity depends on the answer to two questions. First, did Precythe violate a constitutional right? Second, was the right clearly established? See Morgan v. … Audrain County, 968 F.3d 845, 849 (8th Cir. 2020) (explaining that the plaintiff “has the burden to show that” the law is clearly established).

Albers v. Whitley

546 F. Supp. 726 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 31, 1982

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. Prison officials enjoy a qualified immunity from damages in § 1983 actions. Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 , 561— 62, 98 S.Ct. 855, 859-60 , 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978). … Here, there was no clearly established constitutional right to be free from the use of deadly force administered for the necessary purpose of quelling a prison riot and rescuing a hostage.

Weyel v. Catania

52 Conn. App. 292 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Mar 16, 1999

“The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability if the official’s conduct did not violate constitutional rights that were clearly established at the pertinent time or if it was objectively … App. 387, 395 , 682 A.2d 1112 , cert. denied. 239 Conn. 946 , 686 A.2d 122 (1996). “ ‘As a general rule, police officers are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional

Pozdol v. City of Miami

996 F. Supp. 2d 1290 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 29, 2014

To defeat a claim to qualified immunity, a plaintiff must demonstrate: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct … To establish a defense of qualified immunity a Defendant must show, as a preliminary matter, that the challenged conduct forms a discretionary duty of his office. See infra discussion of qualified immunity in Part.

Mitchell v. Cole

176 Mich. App. 200 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 1989

In determining if there is qualified immunity, the court considers: 1) whether the alleged conduct establishes a constitutional violation, and 2) whether the constitutional standard was clearly established at the time in … If the undisputed facts show that the defendant’s conduct violated no clearly established constitutional standards, qualified immunity applies as a matter of law.

Anthony v. Baker

808 F. Supp. 1523 · District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 10, 1992

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless that official violated clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person should have known. Harlow v. … Once a defendant asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of convincing the court that the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged wrongful conduct. Id.

Beltran v. City of El Paso

367 F.3d 299 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 15, 2004

In the absence of a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Amador is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. c. … of the clearly established legal rules at the time of the incident, and qualified immunity protects her from any civil liability.

Estiverne v. Esernio-Jenssen

833 F. Supp. 2d 356 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 23, 2011

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for constitutional violations when their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Qualified immunity A.E.’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable investigatory testing has been clearly established since at least Tenenbaum , in 1999.

Wildoner v. Borough of Ramsey

316 N.J. Super. 487 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 8, 1998

Neither side contends the law regarding probable cause to arrest plaintiff was not clearly established. … Under these circumstances, it was error to decide the issue of qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Rivera v. Washington

298 Ga. 770 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Mar 25, 2016

The trial court denied the motion, ruling that it was possible that facts could be shown in discovery that would establish that neither quasi-judicial immunity nor sovereign immunity applied. … But, Cameron did not make such a pronouncement about qualified immunity under the laws of this state.

Leonel Buenrostro v. Pablo Collazo, A/K/A Pablo Collazo Marrero

973 F.2d 39 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 26, 1992

Hence, state officials exercising discretionary authority are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not transgress clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights of which a reasonably … The next step is to ascertain whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of infringement. See Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640 , 107 S.Ct. at 3039 .

Barton v. Curtis

50 V.I. 783 · District Court, Virgin Islands · Nov 25, 2008

“Qualified immunity shields state officials from suit when their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Id. at 140 (quoting Harlow … the ‘constitutional issue’ and the second being ‘whether the right was clearly established.’ ” Id. at 601 .

Witt v. West Virginia State Police, Troop 2

633 F.3d 272 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 4, 2011

"[Q]ualified immunity protects government officials from liability for violations of constitutional rights that were not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct." Iko v. … That is, that the facts "viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmov- ing party," i.e., Witt, demonstrate that the troopers’ conduct violated no "clearly established" right. Winfield, 106 F.3d at 529.

Butler v. City Of Norman

992 F.2d 1053 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 28, 1993

official violated the clearly established law. … The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument 2 In Mitchell the Court held: Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity

George Mitchell v. State of Washington

818 F.3d 436 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 14, 2016

Qualified Immunity — Clearly Established Despite the fact that we hold that the violation of a constitutional right occurred, Dr. … Bell is entitled to qualified immunity if it was not “clearly established” that his actions would violate Mitchell’s constitutional rights. 7 Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 . At the time of Dr.

Lockridge v. Board Of Trustees, Of The University Of Arkansas

315 F.3d 1005 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 14, 2003

Jones was not entitled to qualified immunity. 3 On appeal, Dr. Jones contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Mr. … This court has broadly considered what constitutes "clearly established law" for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry. Sexton v. Martin, 210 F.3d 905 , 909 (8th Cir.2000); Boswell v.

Prince v. Sheriff of Carter County

28 F.4th 1033 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 14, 2022

immunity analysis with respect to Miller is whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established. … Because this right is clearly established in the context of Bowker’s specific conditions, Miller is not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.