Case law

Maria S. v. Garza

912 F.3d 778 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 4, 2019

The qualified immunity analysis has two prongs: (1) whether the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, demonstrate that an officer violated a federal right and (2) whether the right was clearly established … The district court correctly awarded qualified immunity. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court's grant of qualified immunity. Agent Garza does not recall being told this.

Vincent v. City of Sulphur

28 F. Supp. 3d 651 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Oct 21, 2014

In order to overcome a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must plead facts showing “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of … Was the Right Clearly Established?

Lawny Lamar Browning v. Richard A. Vernon, Director Ron McKinsey

44 F.3d 818 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 10, 1995

Vernon and McKinsey contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity from damages because the allegations in the complaint do not constitute violations of a clearly established liberty interest protected by the Due Process … clearly established?

Syble McDaniel v. Thomas B. Woodard, Iv, Individually and in His Official Capacity as District Judge of Pickens County, Alabama

886 F.2d 311 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 18, 1989

When a defendant advances a defense of qualified immunity, the “plaintiff bears the burden of showing that ‘the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions … Even assuming that talking with the district attorney about a suspected crime is a clearly established constitutional right — and McDaniel cites no case clearly establishing such a right in this circuit — no *315 clearly

Wood County v. Rivers

51 S.W.3d 626 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Dec 29, 2000

plaintiff to rebut this defense by establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law. … Thus, we address the narrow issue of whether their actions violated clearly established law. In determining the applicability of qualified immunity in a § 1983 claim, we engage in a two-step inquiry.

Clark v. Coleman

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 24, 2020

To evaluate qualified immunity claims, the Fourth Circuit has adopted a two-step analysis: (1) Whether a clearly established right has been violated, and (2) whether a reasonable person in the officer’s position “would … Nev. 2018) (“And because it is clearly established that a citizen has the First Amendment right to criticize officers, even with profanity, Dennett is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.”).

Jon Frudden v. Kayann Pilling

877 F.3d 821 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 11, 2017

Clearly Established Law We apply a two-part analysis in qualified immunity cases. Pauluk v. Savage, 836 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2016). … A right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity only where 22 FRUDDEN V.

Case v. Eslinger

555 F.3d 1317 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 29, 2009

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … To invoke qualified immunity, the official first must establish that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority. Bates, 518 F.3d at 1242.

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

Culberson v. Clay County

98 F.4th 281 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 8, 2024

“The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at 656 (quoting Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002)). … Furthermore, even if Culberson had used Brown to argue there was a violation of clearly established law, that case did not address whether jail staff were entitled to qualified immunity because only the supervising sheriff

Carey v. Inslee

364 F. Supp. 3d 1220 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 11, 2019

This does not mean that the subjective good faith defense is coextensive with qualified immunity. … For example, in a situation where a broad constitutional holding may or may not apply to a novel fact pattern, qualified immunity would apply if it was not "clearly established" that the holding extended to the new scenario

Prince v. Sheriff of Carter County

28 F.4th 1033 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 14, 2022

immunity analysis with respect to Miller is whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established. … Because this right is clearly established in the context of Bowker’s specific conditions, Miller is not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.

Michael C. v. Gresbach

526 F.3d 1008 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 19, 2008

The defendants responded that their conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights, and that therefore they were protected by qualified immunity. Both parties moved for summary judgment. … If the right was “clearly established,” the official is not entitled to qualified immunity from suit. A.

Trackwell v. County of Lancaster

Nebraska Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 2020

The trial court found that Kelly and Lacey had qualified immunity against Trackwell’s § 1983 claim because he did not demonstrate the deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right. … To survive a summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity grounds, a plaintiff must assert a violation of a constitutional right, show that this right is clearly established, and raise an issue of material fact as

Estiverne v. Esernio-Jenssen

833 F. Supp. 2d 356 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 23, 2011

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for constitutional violations when their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Qualified immunity A.E.’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable investigatory testing has been clearly established since at least Tenenbaum , in 1999.

Thomas Moran v. Anne Marie Clark

359 F.3d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 26, 2004

Appellants assert that the law was not clearly established. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001), the fact remains that qualified immunity is reserved for state -4- officials whose conduct is objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established

Elkins v. District of Columbia

690 F.3d 554 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 10, 2012

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 person would have known … The district court denied Williams-Cherry qualified immunity on the ground that it has long been clearly established that seizing items based on a warrant that does not authorize such seizure is unconstitutional.

Mitchell v. Cole

176 Mich. App. 200 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 1989

In determining if there is qualified immunity, the court considers: 1) whether the alleged conduct establishes a constitutional violation, and 2) whether the constitutional standard was clearly established at the time in … If the undisputed facts show that the defendant’s conduct violated no clearly established constitutional standards, qualified immunity applies as a matter of law.

Coleman v. Rieck

253 F. Supp. 2d 1101 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Mar 24, 2003

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields governmental officials from personal liability if their actions, even if unlawful, were “nevertheless objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law at the time … The officers may still be entitled to qualified immunity if Coleman’s rights were not clearly established at the time of the incident.

Jewellean S. Mangaroo v. Ivory v. Nelson

864 F.2d 1202 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 8, 1989

Government officials sued in their individual capacities for money damages are entitled to qualified immunity from liability insofar as their conduct does not violate a clearly-established constitutional right of which a … Without expressing any view on whether she actually had a property interest in her position, we hold, for the purposes of our qualified-immunity analysis, that it was not clearly established, at the time of her demotion,