Case law

Argueta v. Jaradi

86 F.4th 1084 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 17, 2023

The qualified-immunity inquiry has two parts. … Once an officer pleads qualified immunity, it is the plaintiff’s burden to establish that the officer violated the plaintiff’s clearly established federal rights. Estate of Davis v.

Burdeshaw v. Snell

350 F. Supp. 2d 944 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 4, 2004

Federal Claims and Qualified Immunity 1. General Principles Snell has pled the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … Under the second prong, the court must determine whether the applicable law was clearly established at the time of the challenged action, that is, whether the defendant would have violated a clearly established right under

Minnis v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University & Agricultural & Mechanical College

972 F. Supp. 2d 878 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Sep 18, 2013

To achieve this balance, qualified immunity shields government officials from liability when they perform discretionary functions provided that their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … immunity because they do not clearly violate any of Minnis’s constitutional rights.

Contreras v. Dona Ana County Board

965 F.3d 1114 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 20, 2020

So I join Chief Judge Tymkovich’s opinion as far as it addresses the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … A court holds, as the Eleventh Circuit did, that the officer is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate any clearly established rights. See Corbitt v.

Herman Runge v. David Dove, Henry Kosters, in Their Individual and Official Capacities and the Douglas School District 51-1

857 F.2d 469 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 19, 1988

Finally, qualified immunity is conceptually distinct from the merits of the suit because it addresses a question of law: whether the law clearly established the impermissibility of the defendant’s actions at the time they … Qualified Immunity Dove and Kosters claim that, as a legal matter, they are entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects government officials from unsubstantial suits and harassing litigation, Harlow v.

Aucoin v. Haney

306 F.3d 268 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 1, 2002

to support Haney politically in his campaign for District Attorney; if the law was not clearly established, then the district court erred, and Haney is entitled to qualified immunity and the dismissal of the complaint … Haney therefore is entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

Patrick Atwater, Jr. v. Kelly H. Tucker

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Oct 24, 2017

“The test for determining whether a defendant is protected from suit by the doctrine of qualified immunity is the objective reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law; … “For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable

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.

Rooni v. Biser

742 F.3d 737 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 4, 2014

“To determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, courts must address two issues: (1) whether the defendant violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established … clearly established.

K.W.P. v. Kansas City Public Schools

931 F.3d 813 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 1, 2019

that [their] conduct violated a clearly established right.’” … not satisfy the ‘clearly established’ standard here

Lory Lombardo v. John F. Harvey, Sandy Jenkin, Cathy Smolkovich

865 F.2d 259 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 12, 1988

of the clearly established law and information he possessed). 9 Procedurally, this Circuit has placed the burden on the plaintiff once the issue of qualified immunity is raised: 10 Where a defendant official is entitled … to qualified immunity, the plaintiff must plead facts which, if true, describe a violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable public official, under an objective standard would

Derek Thomas v. Jacqueline Carmichael

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 23, 2026

To defeat a qualified immunity defense, in addition to showing that the defendant official was deliber- ately indifferent to the plaintiff’s serious medical need, the plaintiff must establish that the right was clearly established … plaintiff’s clearly established right.

Derek Thomas v. Jacqueline Carmichael

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 23, 2026

To defeat a qualified immunity defense, in addition to showing that the defendant official was deliber- ately indifferent to the plaintiff’s serious medical need, the plaintiff must establish that the right was clearly established … plaintiff’s clearly established right.

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

United States v. Albert Tantalo

680 F.2d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 3, 1982

Defense counsel urged that since the appellant had provided immunized testimony before the grand jury, the Government was called upon to present evidence to the court to establish not only an independent basis for the indictment … The district court’s ruling which upheld the indictments, without calling upon the government to establish that the evidence it proposed to present at the trial was untainted by the appellant’s immunized testimony, was in