Case law

Trigalet v. Young

54 F.3d 645 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 2, 1995

The court held that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on the Trigalets’ substantive due process claim upon concluding that, at the time of the incident, the law was clearly established that the officers … The court concluded that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because the law under which defendants actions could form the basis of a constitutional claim became clearly established on March 1, 1990, when

Weaver v. Clarke

45 F.3d 1253 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 30, 1995

immunity analysis--whether the right allegedly violated was "clearly established." … CONCLUSION 18 Because Weaver has alleged the violation of a clearly-established constitutional right, the defendant prison officials are not entitled to dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity.

Wayne Wright v. Charles Beck

981 F.3d 719 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 1, 2020

City of Anaheim, 343 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2003) (“In the absence of binding precedent, a court should look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity … We thus conclude that the due process right to notice, as alleged by Wright, was clearly established and, as a result, Edwards is not entitled to qualified immunity.  WRIGHT V.

Austrian v. Burlington

Vermont Superior Court · Aug 13, 2024

“The outcome of the inquiry depends on the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Id. … Donovan, 2012 VT 27, 1 6 n.2, 191 Vt. 412 ("The fate of an official with qualified immunity depends upon the circumstances and motivations of his actions, as established by the evidence at trial.' .

Conti v. Village of Quogue

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 20, 2024

Because that use of force does not violate clearly established law, Officer Comito is entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s excessive-force claim. … Qualified immunity attaches “when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Reeves v. Thigpen

879 F. Supp. 1153 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 16, 1995

Under this test, public officials performing discretionary functions which would objectively appear to be within the official’s authority have qualified immunity if their challenged conduct did not violate a clearly established … To defeat a qualified immunity defense, 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 or, ... the law clearly

Soderstrand v. Oklahoma ex rel. Board of Regents of Oklahoma Agricultural & Mechanical Colleges

463 F. Supp. 2d 1308 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Nov 22, 2006

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … right was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred.

Frohmader v. Wayne

766 F. Supp. 909 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 7, 1991

Once a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff assumes the burden of showing that the defendant has violated clearly established law. Hannula, 907 F.2d at 131 . … The principles of qualified immunity entitle Wayne to summary judgment on the ground that, in light of the clearly established law governing the use of force, he could, as a matter of law, reasonably have believed that his

Ex Parte Kelley

739 So. 2d 1095 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 25, 1999

This Court has addressed the question presented here on other occasions, and it has recently held in Ex parte Davis, supra, that acts by a State employee may be immune from a lawsuit, on the basis of qualified immunity, if … However, acts by a State employee that are merely ministerial in nature are not protected by qualified immunity. See Defoor v.

Mincieli v. Bruder

914 F. Supp. 512 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 7, 1994

Mineieli can meet this burden by demonstrating that Bruder’s actions violated clearly established constitutional law. Lowe v. Aldridge, 958 F.2d 1565, 1570 (11th Cir.1992). … than on qualified immunity. 6 .

Jennings v. Jones

479 F.3d 110 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 7, 2007

Prong Two: Whether the Law Was Clearly Established The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis asks "whether the constitutional right . . . was 'clearly established' at the time of the incident such … established' when assessing claims of qualified immunity" (quoting Medina v.

Vogt v. McIntosh County Board

98 F.4th 1013 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 15, 2024

Even though Plaintiff has shown a genuine issue of material fact that Defendant violated Plaintiff’s constitutional right, Defendant may still receive qualified immunity if the right alleged was not clearly established … Thus, controlling precedent clearly established Plaintiff’s violated right at the time of the violation and Plaintiff has satisfied both requirements to defeat a claim of qualified immunity at summary judgment.

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?

Bomar v. City of Pontiac

643 F.3d 458 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 2011

The Supreme Court has distinguished between denials of qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage that are based on the district court’s “determination about pre-existing clearly established law” and, on the other hand … But qualified immunity is Main’s defense on the merits.

Stanislaw v. Navajo County Bd. of Sup'rs

70 F.3d 1280 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 15, 1995

This admission, along with the statements from the victim and a witness, gave Deputy Clark probable cause to arrest Stanislaw. 6 In addition, the district court properly found Deputy Clark protected by qualified immunity … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 (1987) (qualified immunity protects an officer who acts reasonably in light of clearly established law). 2.

Peter Bistrian v. Troy Levi

912 F.3d 79 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 28, 2018

Qualified immunity, again, was not available because the right to be free from punitive detention was already clearly established at the time. Id. at 707. … Once again, qualified immunity was not justified, the Court said, because the right against retaliation was clearly established at the time. Id. at 711-12.

Davis v. Hodgkiss

11 F.4th 329 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 2021

The first such determination is “that a certain course of conduct would, as a matter of law, be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Id. … The officer will be entitled to qualified immunity if no constitutional violation occurred or if the conduct “did not violate law clearly established at the time.” Id.

Chrissy F., by Her Next Friend and Guardian Ad Litem Donna Medley v. Mississippi Department of Public Welfare

925 F.2d 844 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 8, 1991

defendant violated clearly established law. … to qualified immunity.

Greene v. Cabral

323 F. Supp. 3d 96 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 15, 2018

"An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was 'clearly established' at the time of the challenged conduct." … For a right to have been clearly established, such that qualified immunity does not shield an official from liability, "the right's contours [must have been] sufficiently definite that any reasonable official *107 in the

Long v. L'ESPERANCE

166 Vt. 566 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jul 11, 1997

The protection from suit afforded a state employee such as defendant is qualified, not absolute: defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if he was “(1) acting during [his] employment and acting, or reasonably believing … As a general matter, good faith exists if the “official’s acts did not violate clearly established rights of which the official reasonably should have known.” Murray v.