Case law

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 12, 2002

However, district employees enjoy a qualified immunity from such liability unless their conduct violated clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.

Amanda Smith v. R. Ray

781 F.3d 95 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 18, 2015

The second prong of the qualified-immunity inquiry asks whether the right was clearly established at the time the violation occurred such … Supp. at 580 5 In arguing that the unconstitutionality of his conduct was not clearly established, Ray argues that it was not clearly established that the hair pulling by itself would constitute excessive force

Alton v. Hopgood

994 F. Supp. 827 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 18, 1998

Although the Fifth Circuit has clearly established a two-step inquiry for qualified immunity, confusion abounds in the case law and in the briefs submitted to this Court. … Although holding that qualified immunity shielded the defendant's from liability, at least one Court has held on similar facts that such rights are clearly established. See Nesmith Through Nesmith v.

R. Scott Sexton v. Ronald Martin

210 F.3d 905 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 19, 2000

established for purposes of the Harlow qualified immunity standard." … In Martin's supplementary motion for summary judgment, Martin argues in the qualified immunity portion of this brief that he "is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that he could be guilty

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.

Diane Sigismondi Judy v. Eastern West Virginia Community and Technical College

West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 25, 2022

As discussed herein, Petitioner pled facts demonstrating a violation of this clearly established law, so, per Marple, Eastern is entitled to no qualified immunity here. … clearly established statutory law.

Judge v. Shikellamy School District

135 F. Supp. 3d 284 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2015

In determining whether a constitutional right was clearly established, a broad and generalized, declaration that a clearly established federal right was violated is insufficient. See Anderson v. … Put another way, for the purposes of the qualified immunity analysis, a right is considered clearly established if “it would be clear to a reasonable officer, that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.”

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.

Birkeland v. Jorgenson

District Court, D. Minnesota · May 1, 2019

However, the Court must also consider the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, whether the right was “clearly established.” … Therefore, the alleged right at issue is not clearly established, and the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. 2.

Anna Chernyy v. Monty Roesler

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 11, 2026

We assume these facts are true, but they do not affect our finding that Moore is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law. 3 Chernyy also argues that “sexual assault … Moore is similarly entitled to qualified immunity for the failure to train claim because he did not violate any clearly established right “of which a reasonable person would have known.” Parrish v.

Rosario-Diaz v. Diaz-Martinez

112 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 24, 1997

If the pretrial rejection of the qualified immunity defense is based on a purely legal ground, such as a finding that the conduct described by the plaintiff, assuming it occurred, transgressed a clearly … deliberate indifference on his part, and, thus, he was entitled (at the least) to qualified immunity.

Michael McIntyre and Laura McIntyre, Individually and on Behalf of Their Children, K.M., L.M., C.M., M.M., and L.M. v. El Paso Independent School District, Dr. Lorenzo Garcia, and Mark Mendoza

59 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1387 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 24, 2016

Here, the McIntyres challenge only the officer’s “entitlement to qualified immunity on the substantive due process claim,” arguing he violated their clearly established rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by “swear[ing] … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “courts may not award damages against a government official in his personal .capacity unless ‘the official violated a statutory or constitutional right,’ and ‘the right was “clearly

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.

Arreola v. City of Fort Worth

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jun 19, 2020

Qualified Immunity “Because qualified immunity is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,” it is important to resolve “immunity questions at the … Ochsendorf further argues that the Fifth Circuit law is “far from clearly established” as to any such claim. Id.

Reilly v. Vadlamudi

680 F.3d 617 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 25, 2012

Qualified immunity protects state officials, including prison employees, so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … In resolving qualified immunity claims, we ask whether: (1) the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, show a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) the right at issue was “clearly established” at the

Alto v. City of Chicago

863 F. Supp. 658 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 25, 1994

Qualified immunity will apply to an officer’s alleged misconduct unless (1) the plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated, and (2) these rights were “clearly established” at the time the alleged violation occurred. … Because the court could not find such actions clearly unreasonable under the circumstances, qualified immunity was appropriate. Id.

Soto v. Bzdel

214 F. Supp. 2d 69 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 26, 2002

was clearly established at the time of the [official’s] alleged violation.” … If courts deciding § 1983 suits on the basis of qualified immunity were to tackle the difficult substantive law, then the law would become 'clearly established' so that officers presented with similar factual scenarios in

Flora v. Sw. Iowa Narcotics Enforcement Task Force

292 F. Supp. 3d 875 · District Court, S.D. Iowa · Feb 12, 2018

Qualified Immunity Standard "Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability and the burdens of litigation unless the official's conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of … immunity because her advice contravened clearly established law.

Advanced Bldg. & Fabrication, Inc. v. Cal. Highway Patrol

918 F.3d 654 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 13, 2019

Honan contends that Ayers violated clearly established law by participating in the search. We agree. … DISCUSSION To survive a claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show: "(1) that the right was violated; and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct." Isayeva v.

Palmieri v. Clark County

2015 NV 102 · Nevada Supreme Court · Dec 31, 2015

Ct. 305, 308 (2015) ("The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established .. … A searching officer is entitled to qualified immunity if "a reasonable officer could have believed" that the search was lawful "in light of clearly established law and the information