Case law

Moore v. Hearle

639 F. Supp. 2d 352 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 12, 2009

Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are shielded from liability flowing from their performance of discretionary functions as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established … Granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity is proper “only ‘if the court finds that the asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the evidence is such that, even when it is

Kaczorowski v. Town of North Smithfield

974 F. Supp. 2d 110 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Oct 1, 2013

) if so, whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation.” … Kaczorowski’s claimed right to employment was clearly established. However, even an affirmative answer to that question may still not be enough to overcome qualified immunity. The First Circuit in Diaz-Bigio v.

Joseph Williams v. City of Sparks

112 F.4th 635 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 9, 2024

of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … A municipality is not entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity. See id.

L.S.T., Inc. v. Crow

49 F.3d 679 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 6, 1995

If the facts taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff do not establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the public official is entitled to summary judgment. … This means, in the context of a motion based on qualified immunity, that the plaintiff must show “there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the defendant’s conduct as being violative of the clearly established law

Costanich v. Department of Social & Health Services

627 F.3d 1101 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 3, 2010

clearly established. 1. … immunity, this right had not previously been clearly established in the civil context. 13 A right is “clearly established” when “the contours of the right were already delineated with sufficient clarity to make a reasonable

Payne v. Hopkins

Nebraska Court of Appeals · May 23, 2017

Qualified immunity consists of two inquiries: (1) whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged make out a violation of a constitutional right and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the … In denying Payne’s Fourth Amendment claim, the district court found that the DCS officials were entitled to qualified immunity because Payne’s right to possess the artwork was not clearly established.

Salinas v. Texas Workforce Commission

573 F. App'x 370 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 19, 2014

To evaluate a qualified immunity defense the court must inquire: “(1) whether the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonably in light of clearly … Salinas has not shown that any defendant violated his constitutional rights or clearly established law.

Bolger v. District of Columbia

608 F. Supp. 2d 10 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2009

If, however, there is a constitutional violation, the second step in the analysis is to determine “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … Circuit cases discussed here establish that such a rule could not be considered "clearly established" in this Circuit at that time.

Baribeau v. City of Minneapolis

596 F.3d 465 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 24, 2010

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects the officers from personal liability under § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a county employee may be held personally liable for a constitutional violation only if his own conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Landers v. Adelstein

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 8, 2021

“The grant of a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity similarly is reviewed de novo.” Whitley v. Hanna, 726 F.3d 631, 637 (5th Cir. 2013). … His assertions that Adelstein was not entitled to qualified immunity fail as he cannot establish the denial of a constitutional right.

George v. McIntosh-Wilson

582 So. 2d 1058 · Supreme Court of Alabama · May 24, 1991

In order to defeat a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff "bears the burden of showing that 'the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions.' " Barts … The defendants cannot claim qualified immunity solely on the argument that George's constitutional rights to be reasonably safe from potentially deadly objects were not clearly established at the time of the accident.

Mocek v. City of Albuquerque

813 F.3d 912 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 22, 2015

A circuit split will not satisfy the clearly established prong of qualified immunity. But even if we were persuaded by Tobey, Mocek has made no compelling argument as to why its logic should apply here. … Jurisdiction 10 Although qualified immunity shields municipal employees where the law is not clearly established, this defense does not apply to municipalities themselves. Cordova v.

Williams v. District of Columbia

268 F. Supp. 3d 178 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 3, 2017

"To defeat a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show not only that an official 'violated a constitutional right' but also that 'the right was clearly established' at the time of the violation. … of the Fourth Amendment, he is still entitled to qualified immunity ifthe right to be free of such force was not clearly established at the time of the violation, February 22, 2014.

Church of Universal Love & Music v. Fayette County

892 F. Supp. 2d 736 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2012

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity involves a two-prong inquiry. … I find, therefore, that the pertinent law was not “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity.

Key v. Grayson

998 F. Supp. 793 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 19, 1998

A claim of qualified immunity depends on whether the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. … not clearly established, and thus recommended that this court grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to the claims for money damages on the basis of qualified immunity.

Collins v. Jordan

110 F.3d 1363 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 4, 1996

Thus, we have jurisdiction to consider Hongisto’s legal contention that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that, given the events of the previous day, an order to ban all demonstrations … Such conduct would violate clearly established First and Fourth Amendment rights.

Bardzik v. County of Orange

635 F.3d 1138 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 28, 2011

We have the option to address only the clearly-established step of the qualified immunity analysis. Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 818 . … Because we decide that Bardzik was a policymaker as Reserve Division Commander, we need not address the clearly-established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 818 .

Hill v. Florio

District Court, S.D. Georgia · Mar 31, 2025

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional … “Thus, if a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court should grant qualified immunity if the plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege a violation of a clearly established

Flowers v. Bennett

123 F. Supp. 2d 595 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Oct 17, 2000

Qualified Immunity The defendants next argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate a clearly established law. … Public officials, including correctional officers, are protected from actions brought against them in their individual capacities by qualified immunity if their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional

Nucor Holding Corp. v. Rinkines

326 Ark. 217 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 7, 1996

The qualified immunity claim is a claim of right which is separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the complaint. . . . … Beaumont, supra, and stated: “The appealability of a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity from suit is clearly established.” Virden v. Roper, 302 Ark. at 128 , 788 S.W.2d at 472 .