Case law

Leisure v. City of Cincinnati

267 F. Supp. 2d 848 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 6, 2003

Qualified Immunity for Defendant Roach Qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects “government officials acting in their official capacities from damages if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or … The second step in qualified immunity analysis is to ask whether the alleged constitutional violations were clearly established at the time of the shooting of Timothy Thomas.

Brothers v. Monaco

363 F. Supp. 3d 1138 · District Court, D. Montana · Jan 28, 2019

Qualified immunity insulates public 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 … Under § 1983, a law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless: (1) the officer violated a constitutional right; and (2) that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct

Doores v. McNamara

476 F. Supp. 987 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Sep 21, 1979

Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 247 , 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1692 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90, 103 (1974) established the standard when a defendant is entitled to this qualified immunity: [A] qualified immunity is available to officers of the executive … However, the mere fact that the defendant must establish that he is entitled to this qualified immunity does not mean that he is not entitled to a directed verdict. In Dellums v.

W. Va. Dept. of Transportation, DMV v. David King, Administrator of the Estate of Wilma Ann King

238 W. Va. 369 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 15, 2016

ANALYSIS This case involves our law of qualified immunity. … Peyton’s driver’s license, the DMV is not entitled to qualified immunity under the facts of this case.

Yang v. City of Brooklyn Park

194 F. Supp. 3d 865 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jul 6, 2016

Qualified immunity protects a police officer from personal liability in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action unless the officer’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. Winslow v. … When a party moves for summary judgment on the ground of qualified .immunity, “ ‘[t]he party asserting immunity always has the burden to establish the relevant predicate facts, and at the summary judgment stage, the nonmoving

Michael Durham v. David Horner

690 F.3d 183 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 8, 2012

Hence, our qualified immunity defense involves a “two-step” inquiry, asking “first whether a constitutional violation occurred and second whether the right violated was clearly established.” Id. … Having concluded that Durham has no "viable § 1983 claim, we need not determine whether any rights [he] asserted were 'clearly established' for purposes of qualified immunity.” See Lambert v.

Perdomo v. City of League City, TX

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 7, 2026

To overcome an officer’s qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff “must allege facts showing that the officer[] (1)‘violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of … established or otherwise, we do not reach the clearly established law prong of qualified immunity.

Morgan Hansen v. Thomas Black

872 F.3d 554 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 18, 2017

To defeat summary judgment based on qualified immunity, Hansen must point to facts showing both that she suffered a violation of a constitutional or statutory right and that the right was clearly established at the time of … Even assuming a constitutional violation, Trooper Black is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct did not violate a clearly established Fourth Amendment right.

Ivonne Padilla v. Peter Mason and Jaeson Jones

Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Jul 28, 2005

Qualified immunity shields an officer if a reasonable officer could have believed the action to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed. Hunter v. … Because there was no clearly established rule which would prohibit Mason from using the force that he did, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Mata Ex Rel. J.A.M v. City of Farmington

791 F. Supp. 2d 1118 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jun 13, 2011

Once the plaintiff has established the inference that the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, a qualified immunity defense generally fails. See Cannon v. … They argue that Mata thus cannot satisfy his burden under the qualified immunity test and show that Rahn’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Archuleta v. Wagner

523 F.3d 1278 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 29, 2008

Archuleta’s clearly established constitutional rights because Ms. … “[Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Shase Howse v. Thomas Hodous

953 F.3d 402 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 18, 2020

Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers from civil liability unless the officers (1) violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time. … As for Middaugh, the majority correctly states that, in order to overcome an assertion of qualified immunity, Howse must show that the officers violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Higgs v. District Court In & For the County of Douglas

713 P.2d 840 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Dec 2, 1985

Qualified immunity provides a governmental official performing a discretionary function with an entitlement to immunity from liability upon a showing that the challenged conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory … The applicability of qualified immunity will turn “primarily on objective factors — that is, the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.”

Bowser v. Smith

314 F. Supp. 3d 30 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 22, 2018

Bowser's *32 pleadings fail to carry his burden to state a claim of violation of clearly established law, and that his claims must therefore be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. … Smith violated the Constitution, qualified immunity fails only if his conduct violated clearly established law in those particular circumstances. Pearson , 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 .

Barber v. Rounds

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 9, 2026

The doctrine of 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 … Second, we must determine “whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Doe v. Whelan

732 F.3d 151 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 17, 2013

Such a state official is entitled to qualified immunity from actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson v. … Where the law is clearly established, “a caseworker is . . . entitled to qualified immunity if officers of reasonable competence could disagree on the legality of the action at issue in its particular factual context.”

State v. Antonich

694 P.2d 60 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1985

Clearly, Wyoming’s Preference Act offends the privileges-and-immunities clause unless a close link exists between valid reasons for the Act and the discrimination practiced. … Since the degree of discrimination bears a close relation to the state’s valid reasons for discriminatory treatment, we affirm the Act’s validity under the test established in Toomer v.

Pleasants v. Town of Louisa

847 F. Supp. 2d 864 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 12, 2012

I commence my inquiry into Rigs-by’s entitlement to qualified immunity by determining whether Ms. Pleasants claims the violation of a right that was clearly established under the circumstances. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 643 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987), an outcome often created by the "clearly established” component of the qualified immunity inquiry, see Lisa R. Eskow & Kevin W.

Menon v. Frinton

170 F. Supp. 2d 190 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 30, 2001

Summary judgment dismissing a claim based upon a defense of qualified immunity may be granted if the court finds that the “asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the evidence is such that, even when it is viewed … The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles public officials to freedom from suits for acts performed in their official capacity if “(1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it

Williamson v. Cox

952 F. Supp. 2d 176 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 9, 2013

was clearly established at the time an action occurred. . . .’”). … The qualified immunity analysis “‘turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.’” Youngbey v.