Case law

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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

Landon Michael v. Joshua Trevena

899 F.3d 528 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 7, 2018

"[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was 'clearly established at the time.' " District … In this case, neither party disputes the clearly-established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Rodriguez-Cruz v. Trujillo

443 F. Supp. 2d 240 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 11, 2006

Immunity Lastly, defendant raises the qualified immunity defense. … Thus, “qualified immunity remains available to defendants who demonstrate that they acted objectively reasonably in applying clearly established law to the specific facts they faced.” Burke v.

Tubar v. Clift

286 F. App'x 348 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 11, 2008

Qualified immunity protects government officials acting in their official capacities from civil liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights of which a “reasonable” official … In Saucier, the Supreme Court imposed a specific, sequential analysis for determining whether qualified immunity is warranted.

May v. Fulton County, Ga.

925 F. Supp. 769 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 7, 1995

Qualified immunity may only preclude individual capacity claims. … For a court to find that a plaintiff was deprived of a clearly established right for the purpose of qualified immunity analysis, ‘“[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand

The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley v. Paul C. Kavanaugh

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Feb 23, 2023

Kavanaugh responded that the record supported his contrary assertion that he was clearly better qualified for the position than Perez. … Normally, the plaintiff’s longer tenure with the employer would not establish that he was clearly better qualified than the selected candidate. See Martinez v.

Sweatt v. Bailey

876 F. Supp. 1571 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jan 31, 1995

Clearly Established Law The court now turns to the clearly established law prong of the qualified immunity test. … Because it is not clearly established that the first amendment places constraints on nonfeasance, however, the court grants Bailey qualified immunity on this claim. b.

Blevins v. Denny

114 N.C. App. 766 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 17, 1994

Similarly, the Court concluded that denial of a public official’s claim of qualified immunity from suit, to the extent that it turns on the legal questions of whether the conduct complained of violated “clearly established … In Mitchell , the United States Supreme Court went on to explain that entitlement [to qualified immunity] is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively

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.

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.

Brett Kohorst v. Thomas Smith

968 F.3d 871 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 6, 2020

Officer Smith’s actions, while a close call, did not violate a clearly established right and the district court did not err in granting qualified immunity. B. … Because a jury could reasonably conclude that Smith violated Kohorst’s clearly established right to be free from excessive force during the initial takedown, Smith is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Bryant v. Louisville Metro Hous. Auth.

568 S.W.3d 839 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 2019

Louisville Metro, then, is clearly cloaked in sovereign immunity. … Juanita Mitchell is entitled to official qualified immunity Because we have held that LMHA is an immune entity, we must determine whether Mitchell is, therefore, extended qualified official immunity for her actions as a government