Case law

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

Randle v. Tregre

147 F. Supp. 3d 581 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Dec 2, 2015

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity, asserted by all of the defendants, if established, precludes li'ability'for damages on all of plaintiffs federal law claims against defendants in their .individual capacities … of the defendants was objectively unreasonable in light of .clearly established law.”

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.

Garrett Brock Trapnell v. George Ralston J.A. O'Brien Joseph Petrowkey and A.W. Bayles

819 F.2d 182 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 18, 1987

On the other hand, if a defendant’s conduct 1 violated clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known, the defendant is not shielded by qualified immunity. … Accordingly, appellants are shielded by qualified immunity from the burden of defending appellee’s procedural due process claim.

Linda Surratt v. Brian McClarin

851 F.3d 389 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 14, 2017

EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, Circuit Judge: In this qualified immunity case, the question on appeal is whether—in light of clearly established law at the time of the incident—officers acted objectively unreasonably when they … But qualified immunity insulates those government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Summer Gorman v. State of Mississippi

892 F.3d 172 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 6, 2018

“‘Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. … To defeat qualified immunity in a Fourth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must demonstrate both a bona fide Fourth Amendment violation on the facts alleged and that the violation was clearly established

Steven Lefemine v. Dan Wideman

672 F.3d 292 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 5, 2012

WIDEMAN district court held that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from suit in their individual capacities because the specific rights at issue were not clearly established at the time of the violations. … The doctrine of qualified immunity "protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their con- duct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu- tional rights of which a reasonable

Elder v. Holloway

975 F.2d 1388 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 17, 1992

In opposition to the officers' motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity, Elder proffered three out-of-state cases to show that the law was clearly established that a warrant was required to make a "constructive entry … Supreme Court's recent approach to qualified immunity.

Lauren Graham v. C. Gagnon

831 F.3d 176 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 27, 2016

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The shield of qualified immunity is lost when a government official (1) violates a constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established. See, e.g., Merchant, 677 F.3d at 661.

Baljinder Singh SANGHA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent

103 F.3d 1482 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 9, 1997

This section gives the Attorney General the discretion to grant asylum to aliens who qualify as “refugees.” … Applicants can no longer establish that their persecution was “on account of’ political opinion by inference, unless the inference is one that is clearly to be drawn from facts in evidence.

Antonio Webb v. Lori Lakey

111 F.4th 939 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 7, 2024

The court concluded that Webb failed to present sufficient evidence to establish any constitutional violation much less a violation of clearly established 2 The Honorable Greg Kays, United States District … The court explained that “allowing Defendants to assert qualified immunity at trial would be procedurally problematic and arguably unfair to Plaintiff.” Qualified immunity may be considered at trial, see Spann v.

Buxton v. Nolte

473 F. Supp. 2d 802 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 12, 2007

Since the facts do not give rise to a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Officer Nolte is entitled to qualified immunity on the arrest without probable cause claim. b. … Officer Nolte is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violated a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known.

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.

John Montin v. Y. Moore

846 F.3d 289 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 19, 2017

A state official is immune from liability unless he or she “violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable official would have known.” Carpenter v. … When determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity, we examine (1) whether the official violated the plaintiff’s constitutional or statutory right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established

Ammons v. Washington Department of Social & Health Services

648 F.3d 1020 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 17, 2011

In reviewing the denial of qualified immunity, we consider the “purely legal issue of whether facts alleged by the plaintiff support a claim of violation of clearly established law” such that appellants are not immune from … This conclusion, at least, serves as clearly established law.

Rodriguez Vazquez v. Lopez-Martinez

253 F. Supp. 2d 164 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 21, 2003

The Defendants raised the issue of their qualified immunity in the Answer to the Complaint (affirmative defense). 2. The Defendants had the burden to prove their affirmative defense of qualified immunity. 3. … The law on politically motivated terminations is clearly established. 6.

Donald Gravelet-Blondin v. Sgt Jeff Shelton

728 F.3d 1086 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 6, 2013

Qualified Immunity Even so, Sgt. Shelton is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The court granted qualified immunity, however, finding that the law in 2004 was not sufficiently well-established to have alerted officers that this use of force was unconstitutional.

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

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.

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.