Case law

Kelley v. CITY OF WILLIAMSON, WEST VIRGINIA

221 W. Va. 506 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 21, 2007

In Baker , the court recognized that “[although qualified immunity is ‘in part an entitlement not to be forced to litigate,’ when the law is clearly established, immunity from trial is appropriate only when the plaintiff … has not demonstrated any genuine issues of material fact which must be resolved to determine whether the defendant’s actions were reasonable under clearly established law.”

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 .

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.

Nelson v. Turner

256 S.W.3d 37 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Jun 6, 2008

She argued that under these circumstances, she was entitled to qualified official immunity from liability. … , but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action occurred.

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

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.

Mark Cook v. Roberta Sheldon and Nelson Saldana, New York State Troopers

41 F.3d 73 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 2, 1994

We conclude that the Troopers have not yet earned qualified immunity as a matter of law because, under the facts alleged by Cook, the Troopers may be held to have violated Cook’s clearly established rights. … To evaluate the Troopers’ right to qualified immunity, we must again examine whether the malicious prosecution claim alleges a violation of Cook’s clearly established federal rights.

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

Joshua Venckus v. City of Iowa City

930 N.W.2d 792 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jun 28, 2019

One well-established immunity is the judicial process immunity. … Against this regulatory backdrop, the abandonment of the absolute immunity in favor of qualified immunity is unnecessary to achieve Venckus's stated policy objectives.

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

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 10, 2001

The test for the applicability of qualified immunity turns upon the "objective legal reasonableness of the action," assessed in light of legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time the action was taken. … 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.

Kennedy v. Dexter Consolidated Schools

124 N.M. 764 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Apr 2, 1998

They are entitled to a “qualified immunity,” which relieves them of liability if “their conduct [did] not violate clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … of the search was “clearly established” at the time of the search. (42) Based on the above analysis, three of the individual Defendants have no qualified immunity with respect to the search of Crystal Kennedy.

Byrd v. Cornelius

52 F.4th 265 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 31, 2022

III Cornelius and Sweetin argue that we should reverse the district court and grant them qualified immunity. … Clearly Established Right Next, we address, taking the facts in the light most favorable to Byrd, whether the officers violated clearly established law when they allegedly used excessive force to arrest a

Dziekan v. Gaynor

376 F. Supp. 2d 267 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 13, 2005

Thus, qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively reasonable person would have known. … Thus, a qualified immunity defense is established where “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate

Johnson v. Wright

234 F. Supp. 2d 352 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 6, 2002

Violation of Clearly Established Law The Supreme Court recently addressed the issue of what constitutes “clearly established law” for purposes of the qualified immunity defense. See Hope v. … Objective Reasonableness of Officers’ Actions It is not sufficient for the qualified immunity analysis to determine that the right violated was clearly established at the time of its violation.

Winnie v. Clarke

893 F. Supp. 875 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Jul 11, 1995

Qualified Immunity Prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless (1) the officials’ conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right; (2) the officials knew or should have known … Furthermore, I found that the plaintiff had a clearly established right to call witnesses at his disciplinary hearing and that the defendants’ refusal to do so was not protected under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Drevdahl v. City of Fairfield

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 2, 2022

“Qualified immunity protects 7 government officials from civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly 8 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Ct. 2042, 2044 (2015) (“Qualified 11 immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a 12 statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the

Swint v. City of Wadley

51 F.3d 988 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 9, 1995

Qualified Immunity Law The district court denied the three individual defendants’ motions for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The denial of qualified immunity is a question of law to be reviewed de novo. … Because such a due process right was not clearly established at the time of the raids in this case, Sheriff Morgan, Chief Morgan and Officer Dendinger are entitled to qualified immunity on the due process claims.

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.

City of San Juan, Texas, City of San Juan Police Officers, Juan Rodriguez, Alfredo Lara & Severiano Martinez, & City of San Juan Chief of Police Samuel Soto v. Gonzales, Juan R.

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Jun 1, 2000

the officers are entitled to qualified immunity under federal law as their actions in effecting appellee's arrest were lawful in light of clearly established law and the information possessed by the officers at the time … If there is, we determine whether the government official's "actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law," entitling him to qualified immunity. Id .