Case law

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

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

VINAGRO v. Reitsma

260 F. Supp. 2d 425 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · May 6, 2003

Qualified Immunity Generally, “[qualified immunity shields government officials wielding discretionary powers ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … A qualified immunity defense is only available to a defendant who could not have been reasonably expected to know that he was violating a clearly established constitutional right. See Amsden, 904 F.2d at 752 .

Goodwin Ex Rel. Nall v. City of Painesville

781 F.3d 314 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 19, 2015

THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ANALYSIS The qualified immunity doctrine “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Caselaw reveals that such a right was clearly established. The Officers contend that Officer Soto is entitled to qualified immunity not just on his initial decision to taser Mr.

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

Estevis v. Cantu

134 F.4th 793 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 16, 2025

We reverse and render judgment granting the officers qualified immunity for all shots fired. … In any event, Estevis bore the burden to negate qualified immunity by showing shots 4–9 violated clearly established law. See King 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).

Copelin-Brown v. New Mexico State Personnel Office

399 F.3d 1248 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 1, 2005

Qualified Immunity We review de novo a district court’s ruling on qualified immunity. Farmer v. Perrill, 288 F.3d 1254, 1259 (10th Cir. 2002). … At the same time, the Court has stated that “[i]f the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.”

Bohn v. Waddell

164 Ariz. 74 · Arizona Tax Court · Apr 6, 1990

immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue." … Defendants have pled the defense of a qualified immunity.

Herbert Liverman v. City of Petersburg

844 F.3d 400 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 15, 2016

contours of protected speech in this area were not clearly established. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry v.

Myers v. City of Fort Wayne, Ind.

729 F. Supp. 625 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 2, 1990

There is no qualified immunity if the defendant violated a clearly established and well litigated general proposition in which the case at hand merely presents a new wrinkle. LeClair v. … An official “would be entitled to qualified immunity if, at the time he acted, the law did not clearly establish that [the official] was prevented from discharging someone holding this particular position.” Wrigley v.

Haidon v. Bloomfield

District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 29, 2024

“Qualified immunity protects officials from damages liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or if it was objectively … “Qualified immunity protects officials from damages liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” or, when a clearly established

LaChance v. Commissioner of Correction

463 Mass. 767 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Nov 27, 2012

judgment, on the basis of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity.

Jaymes Stark v. Lee County IA

993 F.3d 622 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 7, 2021

or statutory right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.’” … In the absence of a showing that Sproul acted with deliberate indifference, Stark has not established the existence of an Eighth Amendment violation.2 We therefore reverse the order denying the motion for qualified immunity

Jeffrey M. Kuha v. City of Minnetonka William Roth Kevin Anderson Dennis Warosh

365 F.3d 590 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 27, 2004

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity,' state actors are protected from civil liability when “their conduct does not violate' clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … The qualified immunity inquiry is a two-step process.

Crawford v. Kemp

139 P.3d 1249 · Alaska Supreme Court · Jul 14, 2006

With respect to Crawford’s constitutional claims, a law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established law and the information available to the officer at the time, a reasonable … entitled to qualified immunity so long as they did not violate "clearly established” law); see also Samaniego, 2 P.3d at 84 (applying the federal test for official immunity to a claim for excessive force). 13 .

Hathaway v. Stone

687 F. Supp. 708 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 27, 1988

Even if it did, they further contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … As set out in Voutour , the standard for qualified immunity is whether a government official performing discretionary functions should reasonably have known that his or her actions violated clearly established statutory or

Spencer v. Rau

542 F. Supp. 2d 583 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Oct 11, 2007

Qualified Immunity The Officers assert they are entitled to qualified immunity. … In order to establish the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity, a plaintiff must satisfy a two-part test: (1) under existing law, the plaintiff must allege a violation of an actual, clearly established constitutional

Eldridge v. Morrison

970 F. Supp. 928 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 4, 1996

Under this test, public official performing discretionary functions which would objectively appear to be within the official’s authority have qualified immunity if their challenged conduct did not violate a clearly established … The Eleventh Circuit has explained that [f]or 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

Lisa Amaechi v. Matthew West, and Bernard R. Pfluger Town of Dumfries

237 F.3d 356 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 9, 2001

The district court denied West’s motion for summary judgment based upon a defense of qualified immunity, reasoning that West’s search, as described by Amaechi, violated Amaechi’s clearly established constitutional rights … To that end, 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