Case law

George Mitchell v. State of Washington

818 F.3d 436 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 14, 2016

Qualified Immunity — Clearly Established Despite the fact that we hold that the violation of a constitutional right occurred, Dr. … Bell is entitled to qualified immunity if it was not “clearly established” that his actions would violate Mitchell’s constitutional rights. 7 Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 . At the time of Dr.

Vines v. City of Dallas, Tex.

851 F. Supp. 254 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 28, 1994

Defendant Hart has asserted the defense of qualified immunity to Plaintiffs claim. In determining whether Defendant Hart has established her defense of qualified immunity, the Court uses a two-prong analysis. … Defendant Hart has asserted the defense of qualified immunity to Plaintiffs claim. Therefore, the Court must decide whether Hart violated a clearly established right of the Plaintiff. The Court finds that Hart did not.

Estate of Redd v. Love

62 F. Supp. 3d 1268 · District Court, D. Utah · Oct 15, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Agent Barnes is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

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

Prentzel v. State, Department of Public Safety

169 P.3d 573 · Alaska Supreme Court · Sep 14, 2007

Under federal law governing constitutional claims brought under § 1988, "a law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established law and the information available to the officer at … To defeat the troopers' claim of qualified immunity, Prentzel must instead show that the troopers' warrantless arrest amounted to a violation of the Fourth Amendment under clearly established federal law governing that amendment's

Hall v. United States

704 F.2d 246 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 25, 1983

Most recently the Supreme Court refined the limits of qualified, good faith immunity, placing “[r]eliance on the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” … Under this approach summary judgment should issue on the grounds of qualified, good faith immunity if the official’s conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights at the time the challenged

David Allen v. Charles McClelland, Jr.

815 F.3d 239 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 9, 2016

DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … A plaintiff can overcome a qualified immunity defense by showing “(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.

Brown v. United States

851 F.2d 615 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 21, 1988

Since Granata’s remedy of dismissal for properly established qualified immunity remains open, mandamus is not available. I. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Maxfield v. Bressler

20 F. Supp. 3d 1084 · District Court, D. Colorado · Nov 18, 2013

To resolve qualified immunity claims, a court must consider two elements: (1) whether a constitutional violation occurred, and (2) whether the violated right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. … However, they assert that Bresslér is entitled to qualified immunity from suit because the violated right was not clearly established law.

Espanola Way Corp. v. Murray Meyerson

690 F.2d 827 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 1, 1982

Further, the defense of qualified immunity is unavailable to officials who, though otherwise covered, act with malice 1 or contrary to clearly established law. Procunier v. … Fifth, a conscious attempt to deprive property owners of property without due process of law clearly contravenes established law.

Powell v. Johnson

405 F.3d 652 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 2, 2005

The trial court also denied the Appellants qualified immunity. 3 On appeal, the Appellants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because the decision to demote Powell was reasonable in light of clearly established … Rainey is therefore entitled to qualified immunity, because doing nothing wrong is not a violation of clearly established law.

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.

Andrade v. Board of County Commissioners

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 3, 2021

Where, as here, the defendants have asserted a qualified-immunity defense, the plaintiffs must show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at … to qualified immunity.”

Glorianna Moore v. Oakland County, Mich.

126 F.4th 1163 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 23, 2025

qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity spares officers from “the time, expense and risk of money-damages actions” unless they violate clearly established constitutional rights. Hagans v. Franklin Cnty.

Schubert v. City of Rye

775 F. Supp. 2d 689 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2011

A government official may be entitled to qualified immunity if either his “conduct did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights or if it would have been objectively reasonable for the official to believe that his … “A defendant pleading qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss is entitled to prevail if the allegations in the complaint fail to state a claim of violation of clearly established law.” Id.

Amanda Reich v. City of Elizabethtown, Ky.

945 F.3d 968 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 19, 2019

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … This brings me to the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis—clearly established law.

Engleman v. Adkerson

District Court, N.D. Georgia · Mar 1, 2024

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Plaintiff devotes no section to her failure-to-intervene claim but simply says Adkerson is not entitled to qualified immunity because it is clearly established that a person cannot be arrested without a

Ajala v. Tom

658 F. App'x 805 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 22, 2016

shown that their conduct violated clearly established law in 2007. … On appeal Ajala argues that the district court erred in granting qualified immunity to the Defendants because, he says, it was clearly established by 2007 that using restraints to inflict prolonged, unnecessary pain on a

Megan McGuire v. Cory Cooper

952 F.3d 918 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 6, 2020

“Summary judgment ‘determinations are appealable when they resolve a dispute concerning an abstract issue of law relating to qualified immunity–typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly … Qualified immunity is a doctrine that “shields a government official from liability unless his conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Greene v. Knight

564 F. Supp. 2d 604 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 29, 2008

demonstrating that the official’s conduct violated clearly established law. … Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue.