Case law

Gordon v. Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas

168 F. Supp. 3d 1148 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 10, 2016

The individual defendants 7 contend they are enti- *1156 tied to qualified immunity from Gordon’s § 1983 and § 1985 claims 8 because the conduct alleged fails to state a violation of a clearly established federal right of … But the former UALR employees — Norwood and Peterson— are also entitled to qualified immunity if Gordon fails to allege the deprivation of a constitutional right or the right was not clearly established.

Marc Hall v. Ramsey County

801 F.3d 912 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 14, 2015

“In [section] 1983 claims, qualified immunity shields government officials from liability and the burdens of litigation unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable … See Vaughn, 253 F.3d at 1128 (holding a government official is entitled to qualified immunity if a constitutional right is not “clearly established at the time of the” alleged violation).

Jamal Stephenson v. John Doe

332 F.3d 68 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 13, 2003

The court indicated that, depending on the jury's answers to the interrogatories, he might have to "decide whether the law was clearly established and whether qualified immunity would attach." … The court later emphasized that this law was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Corral v. Montgomery County

4 F. Supp. 3d 739 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 5, 2014

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to Section 1983 claims and “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability.

Dominguez v. Correctional Medical Services

555 F.3d 543 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 17, 2009

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly' established statutory … Clearly Established Right “For a right to be clearly established, ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what [she] is doing violates that right.’ ” Feathers

Pratt Ex Rel. Estate of Pratt v. Harris County

822 F.3d 174 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 3, 2016

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ … “In order to overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must allege a violation of a constitutional right, and then must show that ‘the right was clearly established ... in light of the specific context of the case

Wilbur Barnes v. Tony Wright

449 F.3d 709 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 2, 2006

Qualified Immunity “[T]he Supreme Court [has] held that ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Second, we consider whether the violation involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Alexander v. Newman

345 F. Supp. 2d 876 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Nov 22, 2004

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment § 1983 claim. … “Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts that do ‘not violate clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Goad,

Gonzalez v. City of Schenectady

728 F.3d 149 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 28, 2013

The issues on qualified immunity are: (1) whether plaintiff has shown facts making out violation of a constitutional right; (2) if so, whether that right was “clearly established”; and (3) even if the right was “clearly established … In this way, qualified immunity shields official conduct that is “ ‘objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.’ ” X-Men Sec., Inc. *155 v.

Jeffrey Cozzi v. Cedrick Thomas

892 F.3d 1288 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 19, 2018

Because Cozzi was arrested without arguable probable cause, “[t]he second qualified immunity inquiry is, in the context of this case, straightforward: our binding precedent clearly established, at the time of [Cozzi’s] … established law and thus is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Pindell v. Wilson-McKee

60 F. Supp. 2d 1244 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Aug 17, 1999

IV The standard for consideration of a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity is as follows: Qualified immunity protects public officials from individual liability in a § 1983 action unless the officials violated “clearly … Once a defendant to a § 1983 action raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show both facts and law to establish that the defendant is not entitled to a qualified immunity. Dixon v.

Luster v. Ledbetter

647 F. Supp. 2d 1303 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 10, 2009

Whether the Eclectic officers are entitled to qualified immunity Chief Ledbetter, Assistant Chief Miles, and Officer Renfroe also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on all claims. … Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1199 (11th Cir.2002) (denying qualified immunity based on clearly excessive force where officer slammed suspect into car after she had been handcuffed); Priester v.

Yvette Felarca v. Robert Birgeneau

891 F.3d 809 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 31, 2018

Nonetheless, he believed that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the law at the time they acted did not clearly establish the illegality of their conduct. … Nonetheless, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because the law at the time they acted did not clearly establish the illegality of their conduct.

Nevarez v. Dorris

135 F.4th 269 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 18, 2025

Thus, no law clearly established the Fourth Amendment violation alleged by Plaintiffs at the time the warrants were sought, so the Troopers are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity The majority concludes that Julie is unable to show a clearly established right under the second prong of qualified immunity.

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.

Moye v. Selsky

826 F. Supp. 712 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 2, 1993

Qualified Immunity The standards for invoking the qualified immunity defense in the Second Circuit are well established. … Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages if their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. Weg v.

Irving v. Dormire

519 F.3d 441 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 7, 2008

A state official is protected from suit by qualified immunity so long as the official’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Defendants are properly denied qualified immunity only if the constitutional right violated was clearly established at the time of the offense. Reece, 60 F.3d at 491 .

William Mariani-Giron v. Heriberto Acevedo-Ruiz, Etc.

877 F.2d 1114 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 23, 1989

A court must look to the “objective legal reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law,” to determine whether the doctrine of qualified immunity applies. Id. … Acevedo Ruiz argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of Mariani Giron’s discharge in March 1985, the law was not clearly established that political affiliation was not an appropriate requirement

Thompson v. Eason

258 F. Supp. 2d 508 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 28, 2003

“The bifurcated test for qualified immunity asks whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established right and, if so, whether the defendants’] conduct was objectively unreasonable.” Palmer v. … in light of that then clearly established law.”

Bosley v. Lemmon

656 F. Supp. 2d 582 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Aug 31, 2009

Federal Qualified Immunity Standard Qualified immunity shields government officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … so, whether that constitu *592 tional right is clearly established.