Case law

Pohto v. Leiser

738 F. Supp. 474 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 5, 1990

DEFENDANT LEISER’S MOTION ON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY GROUNDS “A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability when the acts complained of violate no clearly established … In light of this Court’s aforementioned analysis of qualified immunity, this Court recognizes that, similar to Defendant Leiser, these board members violated no clearly established constitutional law.

Levi Wilson v. Scott Lamp

901 F.3d 981 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 28, 2018

They agree that this court may review the denial of qualified immunity if the issue “is a purely legal one: whether the facts alleged . . . support a claim of violation of clearly established law.” See Pace v. … Government actors have qualified immunity as a shield against litigation if their actions do not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow 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

Tomashek v. Raleigh Cnty. Emergency Operating Ctr.

344 F. Supp. 3d 869 · United States District Court · Sep 26, 2018

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, "[g]overnmental officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for money damages so long 'as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … As such, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the violation of a constitutional right, and Meadows and Johnson are entitled to qualified immunity. The court need not address whether the right was clearly established.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

Allah v. Brown

351 F. Supp. 2d 278 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 26, 2004

Qualified Immunity Even if a plaintiff can establish a constitutional violation, under the doctrine of qualified immunity government officials will not be liable if “[tjheir conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … If the law is not established clearly when an official acts, he is entitled to qualified immunity because he “could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments.”