Case law

Smith v. Kenny

678 F. Supp. 2d 1093 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jul 24, 2009

to qualified immunity. … issue 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.

Cope v. Coleman County

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 26, 2024

In order to overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show: (1) the defendant violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and (2) “the right at issue was clearly established at the time of [the] defendant’s alleged … ’s holding of Monroe in a cell containing a phone cord did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.”); id.

Tubar v. Clift

453 F. Supp. 2d 1252 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 22, 2006

This “qualified immunity” is determined in two steps. … Moreover, the officer in Acosta was denied qualified immunity because the law at the time of the incident in that case was also “clearly established.”

Johnson v. Williams

699 F. Supp. 2d 159 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2010

By definition, qualified immunity is not absolute. Rather, it “is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson v. … However, “[a] plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official’s qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time

Kiser v. Garrett

67 F.3d 1166 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 20, 1995

In September 1993, the child protective services functions of DHS were constitutional rights were not clearly established at the time in issue, the appellees are shielded by qualified immunity. … Louisiana's conclusion that the right to family integrity is not clearly established.

Hafley v. Lohman

90 F.3d 264 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 3, 1996

We note that "qualified immunity is an affirmative defense," and "it will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint." Id. … The defendants in this case are entitled to qualified immunity unless Hafley has alleged the violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id.

Hassan Ex Rel. Hassan v. Lubbock Independent School District

55 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 27, 1995

Questions of law are reviewed ... de novo."5 In examining the claims of qualified immunity on summary judgment, we first inquire whether Hassan has alleged "the violation of a clearly … The determination whether a right is "clearly established" is a more particularized inquiry than Hassan suggests; otherwise, plaintiffs could "convert the rule of qualified immunity ... into a rule of virtually unqualified

Mallin v. City of Eastlake

755 F. Supp. 2d 819 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 29, 2010

Violation of a Clearly Established Right Thompson may still be entitled to qualified immunity if Mallin’s right to be free from having his face slammed into a car and being choked was not clearly established at the time of … Because Mallín failed to carry his burden of proving that a reasonable officer should have known that Gonzales’s actions violated a clearly established right, the Court must grant Gonzales qualified immunity as a matter of

Bombard v. Volp

44 F. Supp. 3d 514 · District Court, D. Vermont · Sep 8, 2014

Qualified Immunity Officer Volp has also moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … An assertion of qualified immunity requires a court to determine “(1) whether plaintiff has shown facts making out [a] violation of a constitutional right; (2) if so, whether that right was ‘clearly established’; and (3)

Couser v. Somers

District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 1, 2019

Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694–95 (1978) (establishing standard under § 1983 for when a municipality may be held liable for the unconstitutional acts of its employee(s)). A. … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991) (“One of the purposes of immunity, absolute or qualified, is to spare a defendant not only unwarranted liability, but unwarranted demands customarily imposed upon those defending

Guite v. Wright

976 F. Supp. 866 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Sep 25, 1997

Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Any individual government officials performing discretionary functions have a qualified immunity defense to a Section 1983 claim for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … in the home, the entry violated clearly established law which a reasonable officer should have known.

Smith v. Mattox

127 F.3d 1416 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 19, 1997

immunity grounds to the extent the appeal concerns pure issues of law, such as whether the law was clearly established); Cottrell v. … An official sued as an individual is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."6 A reasonable official's

Dijon Sharpe v. Winterville Police Department

59 F.4th 674 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 7, 2023

When the stop occurred, it was not clearly established that the officer’s actions violated the passenger’s First Amendment rights. So qualified immunity bars that claim. I. … Walker, A Qualified Defense of Qualified Immunity, 93 NOTRE DAME L.

Kindra O'Bryant v. DCP&P

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 16, 2026

If the specific right was not clearly established, the official is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. A. … established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

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.”

Perez v. Oakland County

466 F.3d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 18, 2006

We thus move to the second step of the qualified immunity test; we determine whether the right violated was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. Myers, 422 F.3d at 352 (citing Estate of Carter v. … We ultimately find that Rice is entitled to qualified immunity because no law exists that would clearly establish for a person in Rice’s position that she was violating Perez’s Eighth Amendment rights.

Angela Borrell v. Bloomsburg University

870 F.3d 154 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 30, 2017

Ficca is entitled to qualified immunity as long as she does not violate a “clearly established” constitutional or federal right. Sharp, 669 F.3d at 159 (quoting Saucier v. … And the district court cases cited cannot clearly establish law for qualified immunity purposes in any event. See Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692 , 709 n.7, 131 S.Ct. 2020 , 179 L.Ed.2d 1118 (2011).

Pahk v. Hawaii

109 F. Supp. 2d 1262 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Jul 25, 2000

On the section 1983 claims (Counts V, VI, and VII), qualified immunity bars claims against state officials in their individual capacities if their conduct did not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional … The plaintiff bears the burden of proof that the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

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.