Case law

Flores v. City of Palacios

381 F.3d 391 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 10, 2004

STEP TWO: OBJECTIVE REASONABLENESS IN LIGHT OF CLEARLY ESTABLISHED LAW For a right to be clearly established under the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, “[t]he contours of … the qualified immunity analysis.

Jill S. N. Schaffer v. Bryan Beringer

842 F.3d 585 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 21, 2016

-4-  Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability unless their conduct “violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a … Thus, the qualified immunity analysis is divided into two prongs: (1) whether the facts alleged establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time

Grant v. Winik

948 F. Supp. 2d 480 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 2013

Accordingly, using pepper spray under these circumstances did not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory law, and so the Court finds that Baran is entitled to qualified immunity on this issue. 3. … Under these circumstances, Winik’s use of deadly force did not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory law. Accordingly, Winik is entitled to qualified immunity.

Frank D. Unger and Sherri J. Unger v. Susan Pierce

Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia · Nov 1, 2023

Pierce were in violation of a clearly established constitutional right, nor were they fraudulent, malicious, or oppressive. … Code, 29-12A-1, et seq. is 3  entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established

Corbin v. City of Springfield

942 F. Supp. 721 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 30, 1996

Qualified Immunity Rooke alleges that she is entitled to qualified immunity on Counts VI and VII because the asserted rights of the plaintiff and his wife were not clearly established as of December 27,1991. … In weighing the defense of qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, this court must first identify the applicable law and then determine whether this law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

Allen v. Higgins

902 F.2d 682 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 4, 1990

Based on the trial court’s finding that the catalog ordered by Allen, “clearly posed no threat to the security of the institution,” the trial court concluded that Groose was not entitled to qualified immunity. We agree. … A government official performing discretionary functions is generally entitled to qualified immunity when his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Ontiveros v. City of Rosenberg, Tex.

564 F.3d 379 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 30, 2009

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. … In order to evaluate the “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity test, the court must ask whether, at the time of the incident, the law clearly established that such conduct would violate the right.

Lyles v. City of Barling

17 F. Supp. 2d 848 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 26, 1998

A court must measure the objective reasonableness of a defendant’s conduct by reference to clearly established law. “No other ‘circumstances’ are relevant to the issue of qualified immunity.” Davis v. … that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Lopez v. Aran

600 F. Supp. 323 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 31, 1984

The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages in the exercise of discretionary functions insofar as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … statutory right clearly established at that time.

Battiste v. Rojeski

257 F. Supp. 2d 957 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · May 12, 2003

To determine the issue of qualified immunity, I must determine first, whether the officer’s alleged conduct violated a constitutional right; and if so, whether that right was clearly established. Saucier v. … Even if a right is clearly established, defendants are still entitled to qualified immunity if their actions were reasonable. See Anderson v.

Burgess v. Fischer

890 F. Supp. 2d 845 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 4, 2012

Qualified immunity protects state officials so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Dickerson v. … Qualified immunity includes a two-step analysis: (1) considering the allegations in a light most favorable to the party injured, a constitutional right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was clearly established

Sterrett v. Cowan

85 F. Supp. 3d 916 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 4, 2015

Clearly Established Defendants argue that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity since they did not violate Sterrett’s constitutional rights and that the rights alleged and procedures sought by Sterrett are not “clearly … In response, Sterrett argues that the rights he asserts, are clearly established and that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Trujillo v. Board of Education of the Albuquerque Public Schools

377 F. Supp. 2d 977 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 17, 2004

LAW ON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … SECOND PRONG OF THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ANALYSIS: THE LAW MUST BE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED. Whether the law was clearly established at the time the claim arose is a legal issue for the court. See Elder v.

Bailey v. Ramos

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 10, 2025

immunity because the unlawfulness of his conduct was not clearly established at the time it occurred. 54 Bailey, for his part, submits that the unlawfulness of Ramos’s takedown procedure was clearly established, … “[T]o overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff’s version of th[e] disputed facts must also constitute a violation of clearly established law.” Joseph, 981 F.3d at 330 (emphasis added).

State ex rel. Youth Services Systems, Inc. v. Wilson

204 W. Va. 637 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 13, 1999

In this case, Youth Services contends that the circuit court’s ruling with regard to its entitlement to immunity was clearly erroneous as a matter of law. III. … Since the immunity provisions at issue apply only to political subdivisions, Youth Services must first qualify as a “political subdivision” to invoke statutory immunity.

Rashied Goodwin v. Edward Conway

836 F.3d 321 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 12, 2016

The detectives moved for summary judgment and asserted a qualified immunity defense. … Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.17 Thus, to resolve a claim of qualified immunity, courts engage in a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether

Musonza v. Costanzo

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 2026

That is because the Court resolved the excessive force claim on the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … An officer might, therefore, be entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established right, but nevertheless not be entitled to the qualified privilege because their use of “force was not objectively

Golden Rule Insurance v. Long

113 N.C. App. 187 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 23, 1993

In order to defeat the qualified immunity, plaintiff had to show that defendant violated some clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … This standard determines if further proceedings are barred by qualified immunity by examining the law in existence at the time of the offense to determine if it contained “clearly established . . . rights of which a reasonable

Oswald v. Graves

819 F. Supp. 680 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 26, 1993

Qualified Immunity In his motion for dismissal, or alternatively, summary judgment, defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is not, however, available as a defense if the officer knew or reasonably should have known that the law clearly proscribes the action taken and that the action violated clearly established statutory or

Doe v. LaDue

514 F. Supp. 2d 1131 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Sep 4, 2007

Plaintiffs allege that the OPD’s proactive monitoring approach violated Doe’s clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure 2 and that defendants are not entitled to qualified … As the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable. search and seizure is a well-established right, even for predatory offender registrants, qualified immunity does not protect the defendant officers. Cf.