Case law

Reid v. Pautler

36 F. Supp. 3d 1067 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jul 31, 2014

established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualifíed Immunity Analysis.

Angela Orr v. Eric Copeland

844 F.3d 484 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 22, 2016

Villarreal, 628 F.3d 209, 214 (5th Cir. 2010) (“[O]nce a defendant invokes qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.”). … But qualified immunity insulates those government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Kebe v. Brown

161 F. Supp. 2d 634 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 12, 2001

granted qualified immunity. … Officers are “entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity if they can establish that reasonable officers could have believed that their actions were lawful in light of both clearly established law and

Samander v. Flemmig

20 F. Supp. 2d 343 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 2, 1998

Qualified Immunity A party is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds if the court finds that the rights asserted by the plaintiff were not clearly established or: no reasonable jury, looking at the evidence … “The right to be free of excessive force is clearly established. That there are constitutional limitations on the use of deadly force during the course of an arrest is also clearly established.” Salim v.

Firth v. State

12 A.D.3d 907 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 18, 2004

The Court of Claims denied claimant’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion premised on OSIG’s absolute privilege rendering it immune from liability, or alternatively, that OSIG was entitled to a qualified immunity … As the governor would clearly be entitled to absolute immunity, so are employees or agents specifically delegated the authority to carry out his duties (see Ward Telecom. & Computer Servs. v State of New York, supra at 291

Stone-El v. Fairman

785 F. Supp. 711 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 17, 1991

We now turn to the issue of qualified immunity. B. … However, as the right in question was not clearly established in reference to the facts of this case, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. As such, we dismiss Stone-El’s amended complaint in its entirety.

Helms v. Gamet

828 F. Supp. 819 · District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 6, 1993

Qualified Immunity Defendants claim that Officer Garnet is entitled to qualified immunity from suit because a reasonable officer in his position could have believed his actions were lawful. … legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken.

Marjorie Shepherd v. City of Shreveport

920 F.3d 278 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 3, 2019

“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Mace, 333 F.3d at 623. … Shepherd argues that Corporal Tucker is not entitled to qualified immunity because “the constitutional right to be free of deadly force” is clearly established.

Mglej v. Garfield County

974 F.3d 1151 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 9, 2020

Once Gardner asserted qualified immunity, it was Mglej’s burden to show “that (1) the officers’ alleged conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the violation, … The district court, therefore, did not err in denying Deputy Gardner qualified immunity on this excessive force claim.13 13 The clearly established Fourth Amendment violation that Mglej has alleged is that Deputy Gardner

Barts v. Joyner

865 F.2d 1187 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 27, 1989

Qualified Immunity Appellants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct in March 1983 did not violate clearly established law. … immunity because they did not violate clearly established constitutional right); State v.

Tennyson v. Children's Services Division

308 Or. 80 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1989

Under section 1983, there are two types of immunity: qualified and absolute. 3 Qualified immunity is the norm for executive officials. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 US 800, 807 , 102 S Ct 2727 , 73 L Ed 2d 396 (1982). … It protects conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, supra, 457 US at 818 ; see also Anderson v.

Anthony Palmer v. Paul Richards, Ronald Goss

364 F.3d 60 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 6, 2004

established, we conclude that the district court (Baer, J.) properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … It was, of course, Richards’s burden at summary judgment to show the nonexistence of a clearly established right and his entitlement to qualified immunity. Tellier, 280 F.3d at 84 .

Sandra Outler v. Kelly Cooper

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 10, 2025

Cooper argues that we have jurisdiction because this appeal presents issues of law re- lating to his qualified-immunity defense. … However, Cooper argues in his merits brief that, even if he violated the Eighth Amendment, that violation was not clearly established at the relevant time, USCA11 Case: 25-11522 Document: 29-2 Date

Elizabeth Fujiwara v. Charles G. Clark, Etc.

703 F.2d 357 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 1, 1983

Strickland rule, the immunity defense would be unavailing to petitioners if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

Alana Crutcher-Sanchez v. James L. Wagner

687 F.3d 979 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 3, 2012

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 rights of … A qualified immunity analysis involves: first, whether the facts alleged establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right and second, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

Liffiton v. Keuker

850 F.2d 73 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 21, 1988

Even if they are not entitled to absolute immunity, they may be entitled to qualified immunity if their actions were objectively reasonable under clearly established law. Harlow v. … Such an action is neither clearly prosecutorial in nature, entitling him to absolute immunity, nor objectively reasonable under clearly established law, entitling him to qualified immunity.

Blissett v. Coughlin

66 F.3d 531 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 25, 1995

In the context of the claims in this case, qualified immunity affords government officials a two-tier defense “from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Consistent with their pretrial posture, Appellants made no further effort to establish a qualified immunity defense following the colloquy.

Charles v. Grief

522 F.3d 508 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 31, 2008

that their conduct is objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. … established law, officials may sometimes be required to proceed to trial even though the ultimate resolution of those factual disputes may show that they are entitled to qualified immunity from liability.”

Noland v. Wheatley

835 F. Supp. 476 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 22, 1993

Qualified immunity provides a defense to conduct which “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 . … The defendants claim entitlement to qualified immunity, contending that the ADA was not clearly established law during the time in which the conduct that Mr. Noland alleges occurred.

Gray-Hopkins v. Prince George's County, Maryland

309 F.3d 224 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Oct 30, 2002

official's conduct did not violate clearly established law." … qualified immunity doctrine as set forth in Harlow v.