Case law

Jacqueline Tuggle v. Tom Mangan, Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission

348 F.3d 714 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 6, 2003

In denying Man-gan’s qualified immunity defense, the district court stated the law was clearly established at the time Mangan acted that intentional sexual harassment by a person acting under color of state law violated the … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity generally shields state actors from civil liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Chiu v. Plano Independent School District

260 F.3d 330 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 24, 2001

We apply a two-step analysis to determine whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity. “First, we must examine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established right.” … FIRST AMENDMENT ANALYSIS Under the first prong of our qualified immunity analysis, we must determine whether Plaintiffs have alleged a violation of a clearly established right. See Evans v.

Bueno v. Chekush

355 F. Supp. 3d 987 · District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 21, 2018

Clearly Established Law Regarding the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the misconduct. … The dispositive question is whether the violative nature of the particular conduct is clearly established .... Qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.

In Re Scott County Master Docket

672 F. Supp. 1152 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Nov 2, 1987

were not “clearly established.” … “[Qualified immunity will be forfeited only when at the time of the conduct in question it is clearly established that plaintiffs have the particular constitutional right and that the statutory and regulatory provisions in

William Brinsdon v. McAllen Independent Sch Dist

863 F.3d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 30, 2017

To establish that qualified immunity does not apply, Brinsdon must prove that Santos or Cavazos (1) “violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged … Second, the district court held that Santos and Cavazos were entitled to qualified immunity because how existing law applied to the facts was not clearly established.

Estate of Sauceda v. City of North Las Vegas

380 F. Supp. 3d 1068 · District Court, D. Nevada · Mar 30, 2019

Clearly Established Right "Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Kisela v. … Assuming this result will obtain-as the Court must at summary judgment-Pollard's warrantless entry violated Plaintiffs' clearly established rights. The Court, therefore, denies Pollard qualified immunity.

Bibeau v. Pacific Northwest Research Foundation

188 F.3d 1105 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 19, 1999

Heller's assistant) contend that as government contractors that did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity and liability under section 1983. 7 Generally, the key question to be answered for purposes of qualified immunity is whether the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged acts.

Collins v. City of N.Y.

295 F. Supp. 3d 350 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 29, 2018

The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was 'clearly *363 established' at the time of the violation." Tolan v. … immunity was not clearly established."

Navorro-Monzo v. Hughes

297 Ark. 444 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 17, 1989

Both of these cases concerned qualified privilege or immunity. … It was clearly a privileged publication. Neither the allegations in the complaint nor other matters presented to the court, even if established at trial, would support a finding of malice.

JONATHAN CRUZ VS. THE CAMDEN COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT (L-3570-17, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 11, 2021

Dougherty Also Has Qualified Immunity "The affirmative defense of qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability for discretionary actions taken in the course of their public responsibilities … "[Q]ualified immunity is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right." Lapolla v. Cnty. of Union, 449 N.J. Super. 288, 304 (App. Div. 2017) (quoting Ramos v.

Gordon v. Sadasivan

144 Mich. App. 113 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 1985

did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which the defendant knew of should have known. … We also find that plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Buchhorn v. Douglas County, Kansas, Board of Commissioners

District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 2, 2025

clearly established if a case exists that is factually identical. … than their prosecutorial duties, they are entitled to qualified immunity so long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

James King v. United States

917 F.3d 409 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 25, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials "from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … If a jury were to credit Plaintiff's testimony, then neither Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because any reasonable officer would have known, based on clearly established law, that applying force-tackling Plaintiff

Fitzpatrick v. Meyer

809 F. Supp. 1292 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 9, 1992

A defendant is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds if he shows in light of clearly established principles that he could, as a matter of law, reasonably have believed that his actions were lawful. … The Defendants assert that qualified immunity is proper because Holbrook did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights; Holbrook’s inspection of the records was within her discretionary authority

Horne v. Crozier

565 N.W.2d 50 · South Dakota Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1997

To find whether qualified immunity applies, the test is to ask if the officer’s conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable officer would have known at the time. Harlow v. … . [¶ 7] Law enforcement officers will be shielded by qualified immunity if (1) their conduct violates no clearly established constitutional or statutory rights; or (2) it is objectively reasonable for them to believe their

Powell v. Barrett

376 F. Supp. 2d 1340 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jul 5, 2005

established” test for qualified immunity) to sustain their liability under an entrustment-based theory. … of qualified immunity.

Staco v. Miami-Dade County

536 F. Supp. 2d 1301 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 26, 2008

This heightened pleading standard is important because the court in a qualified immunity case must determine whether the individual defendant’s actions violated a “clearly established” constitutional right. Id. … The affirmative defense of qualified 'immunity protects public actors from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Crigger v. McIntosh

254 F. Supp. 3d 891 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jun 8, 2017

Generally, a government official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity and is shielded from civil suit if his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In determining whether qualified immunity applies, the Court must determine: (i) whether the facts as alleged establish that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right and (ii) whether that right was clearly established

Troy Baker, and Glenn Snader, as Father and Next Friend of Jesse Snader v. City of Hamilton, Ohio, and Eric Taylor

471 F.3d 601 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 18, 2006

If the plaintiff establishes that a constitutional violation occurred, a court must next consider “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … When a defendant raises a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Silberstein v.

Burns v. PA Department of Corrections

642 F.3d 163 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 20, 2011

Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit even if their actions were unconstitutional as long as those officials‘ actions ―d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The burden of establishing qualified immunity falls to the official claiming it as a defense.