Case law

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.”

Bustillos v. City of Artesia

98 F.4th 1022 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 17, 2024

Officer Bailey counters by asserting qualified immunity. A. Mr. Bustillos must prove the violation of a clearly established right. … Once a defendant asserts qualified immunity, “the plaintiff must establish (1) the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s

Bouye v. Marshall

102 F. Supp. 2d 1357 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 21, 2000

“Qualified immunity shields government officials executing discretionary responsibilities from civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To overcome qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must show that: (1) Marshall violated a federal constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Santamorena v.

Eaton v. Meneley

379 F.3d 949 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 3, 2004

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 … Finally, we are able to turn to the central issue in the case against Meneley on qualified immunity, which is whether the plaintiffs’ allegations, as construed in the light most favorable to them, would establish a violation

(PS) Machado v. Lizarraga

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 9, 2020

Qualified Immunity 26 Lastly, defendants argue that they are immune from liability under the doctrine of 27 qualified immunity. … Cal. 2010) (denying to dismiss complaint on 9 qualified immunity grounds because it could not be clearly determined on the face of complaint, 10 but declaring that the ground could be raised through summary judgment).

Veney v. Ojeda

321 F. Supp. 2d 733 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 15, 2004

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability for alleged civil rights violations to the extent the officials’ “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If no constitutional violation is found, qualified immunity is clearly unnecessary, as plaintiffs underlying constitutional claim simply fails.

Bonny Edward Taylor v. Henry P. Hughes

920 F.3d 729 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 3, 2019

Constitutional claims and qualified immunity Qualified immunity shields “government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … There are two parts to the qualified-immunity analysis: (1) the relevant facts must set forth a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the defendant must have violated a constitutional right that was clearly established

Roberson v. Mullins

876 F. Supp. 100 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jan 30, 1995

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when they perform discretionary functions, unless their acts violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … “Faced with such uncertainty, it may be preferable to err on the side of caution and ... find qualified immunity where [the court] cannot confidently state that the right was clearly established or that the officials must

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.”

Muhammed Kenyatta v. Roy K. Moore, James O. Ingram and Thomas Fitzpatrick

744 F.2d 1179 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 29, 1984

In Harlow the Supreme Court simplified the qualified immunity defense, jettisoning the previous requirement of good faith, and announced a simple objective standard; whether a defendant violated “clearly established” law … As we have explained above, the Harlow Court eliminated the subjective prong from analysis of qualified immunity; what remains is the question whether the agents’ actions violated rights clearly established at the time.

Anthony Wayne Hardigree v. Marc Lofton

992 F.3d 1216 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 6, 2021

Immunity is appropriate so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Once an official asserting qualified immunity establishes that he was acting within his discretionary authority—which is not in question here—the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is improper

Parkulo v. West Virginia Board of Probation & Parole

199 W. Va. 161 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1997

for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known. … acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known.

Willson v. Cagle

711 F. Supp. 1521 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 22, 1988

clearly established constitutional rights. … However, the Harlow opinion also clearly states that qualified immunity is available only to "government officials performing discretionary functions." Id.

Eric Wenzel v. Carl Storm

899 F.3d 598 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 9, 2018

Qualified immunity shields a law enforcement officer from liability in a § 1983 action unless the officer’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity “unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established

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.”

Sunn v. City & County of Honolulu

852 F. Supp. 903 · District Court, D. Hawaii · May 19, 1994

have believed that their conduct did not violate clearly established law. … Qualified immunity requires that in light of clearly established principles governing the conduct in question, the officer objectively could have believed his conduct was lawful. Anderson v.

Clyde Weiler v. James Purkett Leah Embly

137 F.3d 1047 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 2, 1998

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields government actors from suit when, “a reasonable officer could have believed [the challenged act] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [defendants … Contours of the Right as “Clearly Established” Normally, a determination that the plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of a constitutional right ends the qualified immunity inquiry. See, e.g., Thomas v.

Velasquez v. Audirsch

574 F. App'x 476 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 3, 2014

Qualified immunity protects governmental officials from liability so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … In this context, “qualified immunity turns ... on whether it was then ‘clearly established that the circumstances with which’ the officer ‘was confronted did not constitute probable cause and exigent circumstances.’ ” Pierce

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jul 13, 2006

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an individual is immune from suit if he undertook the actions complained of in good faith in the performance of his duties and the acts do not violate any clearly established constitutional … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not apply where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Id. ; Robinson v.

COWAN v. SCHARFENBERG

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 4, 2025

Div. 2024). 20 Defendants argue that qualified immunity also bars Plaintiffs’ malicious prosecution claim. … Evanson, 615 F.3d 197, 223 (3d Cir. 2010) (stating that the defendant bears “[t]he burden of establishing entitlement to qualified immunity”). 28 future event . . .