Case law

Olivo Gonzalez v. Teacher's Retirement Board

208 F. Supp. 2d 163 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 12, 2002

Plaintiffs counter by arguing that the doctrine of qualified immunity does not protect the Defendants from a violation of clearly established constitutional or statutory rights, and that the Court should not abstain pursuant … Qualified Immunity Defendants invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity in support of their motion to dismiss.

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.

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.

Cindy Laine Franklin v. Chris Curry

738 F.3d 1246 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 23, 2013

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields government officials acting within their discretionary authority from liability unless the officials “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Thus, to evaluate their entitlement to qualified immunity, we ask whether Franklin has alleged a violation of a constitutional right and, if so, whether the constitutional right violated was clearly established at the

Occupy Columbia v. Haley

922 F. Supp. 2d 524 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Feb 7, 2013

“To escape dismissal of a complaint on qualified immunity grounds, plaintiffs must (1) allege a violation of a right (2) that is clearly established at the time of the violation.” Evans v. … Clearly Established The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires the court to consider “whether the constitutional right violated ‘was clearly established in the specific context of the case — that is, [whether

Carey v. Inslee

364 F. Supp. 3d 1220 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 11, 2019

This does not mean that the subjective good faith defense is coextensive with qualified immunity. … For example, in a situation where a broad constitutional holding may or may not apply to a novel fact pattern, qualified immunity would apply if it was not "clearly established" that the holding extended to the new scenario

Militello v. Sheriff of the Broward Sheriff's Office

684 F. App'x 809 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 5, 2017

Therefore, they are entitled to qualified immunity. To conclude, we emphasize that we have only addressed whether Deputies Morel and Polk violated clearly established law. … Of course, a district court’s opinion cannot create clearly established case law for purposes of qualified immunity. See Snider, 344 F.3d at 1328 .

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.

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.

Hendricks v. New Albany Police Department

749 F. Supp. 2d 863 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 1, 2010

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not *870 violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The applicability of qualified immunity is determined by a two-part inquiry established in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).

Howard v. Kansas City Police Department

570 F.3d 984 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 2, 2009

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from lia *988 bility in a section 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional- or statutory right of which a reasonable person … was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.

Renee Gustafson v. William Adkins

803 F.3d 883 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 16, 2015

Adkins is Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity   Adkins  also  argues  that  the  district  court  erred  in  deny‐ ing his motion for summary judgment based on the defense  of qualified immunity.  … The  doctrine  of  qualified  immunity  “‘protects  govern‐ ment  officials  from  liability  for  civil  damages  when  their  conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or con‐ stitutional  rights  of  which

Hopkins v. O'CONNOR

282 Conn. 821 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Jul 3, 2007

Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, supra, 272 Conn. 790 (noting that distinction between qualified immunity and absolute immunity is that persons protected by latter immunity are not hable for malicious “conduct and statements … Ed. 2d 288 (1967) (police officer sued for false arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 has only qualified immunity).

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

Ducksworth v. Landrum

62 F.4th 209 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 10, 2023

Here, as in all qualified immunity cases, the plaintiff must show (A) the violation of a constitutional right that (B) was clearly established at the time of the officers’ conduct. … Qualified immunity protects a law enforcement officer from personal liability in a lawsuit unless a plaintiff shows that the officer’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.

Sidney Arnold v. Steven Williams

979 F.3d 262 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 23, 2020

pleading the defense of qualified immunity.’” … In this case, Arnold broadly addressed qualified immunity in his original complaint by alleging that Deputy Williams “knowingly violated” “clearly established law.”

Gutierrez v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

437 Mass. 396 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Aug 2, 2002

Qualified immunity. … Although the defendants claim qualified immunity as to all claims, the only remaining claim to which qualified immunity may , apply is Daniella’s excessive force claim.

Mlodzinski Ex Rel. J.M. v. Lewis

648 F.3d 24 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 2, 2011

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, police officers are protected “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The qualified immunity question before us is whether a reasonably competent officer could have thought, even mistakenly, that in light of the clearly established law at the time, it was reasonable to keep plaintiffs in handcuffs

Maria S. v. Garza

912 F.3d 778 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 4, 2019

The qualified immunity analysis has two prongs: (1) whether the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, demonstrate that an officer violated a federal right and (2) whether the right was clearly established … The district court correctly awarded qualified immunity. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court's grant of qualified immunity. Agent Garza does not recall being told this.

Marcus Evans v. Lorenetta Smith

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 22, 2025

And second, was the right clearly established at the time? If either answer is no, then qualified immunity applies.” Id. (cleaned up). … Under this Court’s precedent on the clearly established prong, officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless “the violative nature of [the] particular conduct is clearly established.” See Kelsay v.