Case law

Stokes v. Gann

498 F.3d 483 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 29, 2007

“Qualified” or “good faith” immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability “unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … objectively unreasonable in the light of the clearly established law at the time of the incident.

Henry Lyons v. F. Wayne Vaught

781 F.3d 958 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 24, 2015

We have jurisdiction over the denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, including “whether a particular complaint sufficiently alleges a clearly established violation of law.” Ashcroft v. … established’ for purposes of the . . . qualified immunity standard.”

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

Joseph Rome v. Eugene Burden, Michel Cabello, Angela Phillips, and Sareta Davis

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Oct 31, 2002

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense. We need only reach this issue if there is a clearly established statutory or constitutional right violated. Rome has not alleged any violation of a statutory right. … Furthermore, as Rome did not establish the predicate constitutional violation, we need not reach the issue of qualified immunity.

Jones v. United States of America

934 F. Supp. 2d 284 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2013

Qualified Immunity Officer Kadiev asserts the defense of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” Hunter v. … Qualified immunity shields 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 have

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.

Omni Behavioral Health v. Steve Miller

285 F.3d 646 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 21, 2002

But, public officials are entitled to qualified immunity and shielded from liability when their conduct does not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … immunity test and prove that such a right was clearly established.

Fabiano v. City of Palos Hills

336 Ill. App. 3d 635 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 25, 2002

Qualified Immunity Defendants further argue that they enjoy qualified immunity from section 1983 liability because, even if they in fact lacked probable cause to prosecute Sandra Fabiano, they reasonably believed that they … “But if a reasonable officer would not have believed that the person had committed a crime, then the officer, whatever he did or did not believe, is acting contrary to clearly established law and therefore has no immunity

Hampton v. Oktibbeha County Sheriff Department

480 F.3d 358 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 6, 2007

establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.” … If the plaintiff fails to state a constitutional claim or if the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable under clearly established law, then the government official is entitled to qualified immunity.

Buzzi v. Gomez

24 F. Supp. 2d 1352 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 28, 1998

Substantiating Violations of Clearly Established Constitutional Law To overcome qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must show that: (1) Alvarez violated a federal constitutional right; and (2) that the right was clearly established … clearly established law.

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.

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

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.

Robinson v. City of San Diego

954 F. Supp. 2d 1010 · District Court, S.D. California · May 28, 2013

clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue. … Specific binding precedent is not required to show that a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.

Tyler v. Kyler

15 Neb. Ct. App. 939 · Nebraska Court of Appeals · Sep 11, 2007

Whether an official may prevail in his or her qualified immunity defense depends upon the objective reasonableness of his or her conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law. Id. … The officers’ conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. They were entitled 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

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.

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

Wynn v. Morgan

861 F. Supp. 622 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jul 8, 1994

However, the Sixth Circuit noted, the defendants may assert the defense of qualified immunity to the extent that their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … were “clearly established” at the time the actions were taken.