Case law

Ayers v. Ryan

152 F.3d 77 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 28, 1998

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for damages resulting from the performance of discretionary' official functions if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The district court concluded that Ryan was entitled to qualified immunity because Ayers could not “demonstrate that Ryan’s refusal to call certain witnesses was a clearly established violation of the Due Process Clause.”

Tearpock-Martini v. Borough

98 F. Supp. 3d 697 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2015

For a qualified immunity analysis, therefore, the court must examine: 1) whether the officials violated a constitutional right and 2) whether that right was clearly established at the time. Wright v. … Accordingly, we cannot find that the right was clearly established at the time and qualified immunity applies to the individual defendants.

Tennell v. Telthorster

84 S.W.3d 1 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 12, 2000

In this appeal from a summary judgment on the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, we are asked to review whether appellee, Officer Mark Andrew Telthorster, established as a matter of law that he acted in good faith … In one point of error, the appellant argues the appellee is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because he failed to establish as a matter of law that he acted in good faith during the appellant’s

Leghart Ex Rel. Leghart v. Hauk

25 F. Supp. 2d 748 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Nov 23, 1998

As such, “[qualified immunity protects a police officer from liability if a reasonable competent law enforcement officer would not have known that his actions violated clearly established law.” Harper v. … “The first step is to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Id.

Bellotte v. Edwards

629 F.3d 415 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 11, 2011

Kennedy, 349 F.3d 731, 743 (4th Cir.2003), we affirm the district court’s holding that this no-knock entry violated the Bellottes’ clearly established constitutional rights and does not warrant an award of qualified immunity … Because we have jurisdiction over the denial of a claim for qualified immunity on summary judgment only “to the extent that the official maintains that the official’s conduct did not violate clearly established law,” Winfield

Daniel Tanner v. Anita Phillips

669 F. App'x 444 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 4, 2016

established right. 2 14-35983 See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the conduct at issue violated a clearly established constitutional right).

Bernstein v. Lopez

321 F.3d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 4, 2003

We hold that no further facts need to be determined and that as a matter of law the defendants are protected by qualified immunity because the plaintiffs have no clearly established right to continue in their administrative … This property interest, they maintain, was “clearly established.”

Michael Hogan v. James Carter

85 F.3d 1113 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 4, 1996

It is well established that government officials are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity not only from damage liability but from suit, “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … to qualified immunity.

Doe v. Groody

361 F.3d 232 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 19, 2004

The four Task Force officers appeal the denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. II. … But the immunity is forfeited if an officer’s conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wilson v.

Glen Delaney v. George Detella, Glenn Malone, Christopher Hughes, Eugene McAdory Clarence Wright, Donald Burns, and David Walker

256 F.3d 679 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 9, 2001

Having found that Delaney has alleged a constitutional violation, we consider whether the right he asserts was clearly established prior to the spring of 1996. “ ‘[C]learly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity … On this record, Judge Coar was right to deny the qualified immunity plea of all defendants.

Baxter ex rel. Baxter v. Vigo County School Corp.

26 F.3d 728 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 14, 1994

By now, it is well established that certain government officials enjoy a qualified immunity from suit. … To determine the applicability of qualified immunity, the defendants’ actions must be compared to what a reasonable official would believe was required in light of the clearly established legal rules.... Casteel v.

McCall Ex Rel. Odom v. Department of Human Resources

176 F. Supp. 2d 1355 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Nov 29, 2001

their conduct violates no ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Lassiter v. … “For 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 to make it obvious to all reasonable government

Adam Cmty. Ctr. v. City of Troy

381 F. Supp. 3d 887 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 3, 2019

In contrast, legislative officials performing traditionally executive or administrative discretionary functions are entitled to only qualified immunity if they can establish that their actions were within the scope of their … Qualified immunity for Individual Defendants Defendants argue that the zoning board members are entitled to qualified immunity in connection with Plaintiff's claims.

Peterson v. Foley

559 S.W.3d 346 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 2018

Qualified Immunity For purposes of determining qualified immunity for government officials, the duties of those officials are categorized as either ministerial or discretionary. … Although the arguments advanced by the parties on appeal primarily concern the issue of qualified immunity, it is well-established that this Court may affirm the trial court for any reason in the record. E.g., Ky.

E.A.F.F. v. Gonzalez

600 F. App'x 205 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 16, 2015

The analysis of a defense of qualified immunity involves two steps. “First, a court must decide whether a plaintiffs allegation, if true, establishes a violation of a clearly established right.” Hernandez ex rel. … Whether the plaintiffs have alleged a violation of a clearly established right, as required under the first step of this court’s qualified immunity analysis, is not at issue.

Kesler v. King

29 F. Supp. 2d 356 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 7, 1998

With respect to Defendant Wagner’s claim of qualified immunity, the Court has already concluded that Plaintiffs have alleged violations of two clearly established constitutional rights. See Siegert v. … to show that qualified immunity does not bar recovery.

Kelly v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 15, 2021

Even if the Court concluded that Officer Gaton’s use of force was not objectively reasonable, he is entitled to qualified immunity so long as the use force did not violate “clearly established” law. … a “clearly established” right.

Walter Warren v. State of Missouri Dick Moore Bill Armontrout Leonard Rutledge Richard A. Anderson Richard K. Bowers Keith Heidbreder Loren Stout

995 F.2d 130 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 28, 1993

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Warren’s unsafe work place claim because the law governing prison working conditions was not clearly established in 1986 — since prison work is voluntary, it

Doug Morgan v. Plano Independent School District

610 F.3d 877 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 30, 2010

Qualified immunity thus shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability for civil damages but only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a … Appellees’ have alleged a violation of clearly established law; therefore, Appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Owens v. Zade

District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 20, 2023

6 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Zade in her individual capacity at trial if he can demonstrate that the right at issue is clearly established. See [Doc. 37 at 12–13 (invoking qualified immunity)].