Case law

Holloway v. Lamar County

180 F. Supp. 3d 467 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Apr 8, 2016

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects 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 … Therefore, because a reasonable officer would have known that tasing Plaintiff was objectively unreasonable under clearly established law, the Court does not find that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and will

Jacobs v. West Feliciana Sheriff's Dept.

228 F.3d 388 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 13, 2000

To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, we must determine: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the defendant's … the first hurdle in defeating the defendants' qualified immunity defense. 13 The second part of our qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the defendants' conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly

Hernandez v. Causey

District Court, S.D. Mississippi · May 4, 2021

CAUSEY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT In his Motion for Summary Judgment based on qualified immunity, Causey argues there is no evidence that he violated a clearly established right when he … right and 2) whether the right was clearly established.

Catrina Johnson v. City of Minneapolis

901 F.3d 963 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 24, 2018

We first turn to the question of qualified immunity. … -11- so the district court did not address the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity test.

Walton v. NM State Land Office

821 F.3d 1204 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 19, 2016

Powell submits that his actions weren’t clearly forbidden by existing law at the time he took them so he’s entitled to qualified immunity. … Powell rightly notes that, to avoid a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show not only that her federal constitutional or statutory rights were violated but also that they were so “clearly established” at the

Wark v. Board of County Commissioners

47 P.3d 711 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 2002

Because the trial court's finding is not clearly erroneous, we may not disturb it. B. … Although the county argued that plaintiffs' claims were barred under the qualified immunity doctrine, the trial court's ruling is primarily based on the insufficiency of the allegations in the complaint.

Price v. Dixon

961 F. Supp. 894 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 21, 1997

Qualified immunity operates to release government officials from suit if it cannot be shown that their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person in their position would have … Without expressly deciding this issue, however, the court finds that qualified immunity is appropriate based on the “clearly established law” analysis.

Tucker v. Faith Bible Chapel Int'l.

36 F.4th 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 7, 2022

favor in order to answer the legal question of whether the plaintiff has asserted a clearly established constitutional violation. … Consider qualified immunity, which shields government officials from suits for damages unless the official violates a clearly established federal constitutional or statutory right.

Kristine Williams v. MO Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 6, 2026

Further, they assert that Williams failed to plausibly allege a violation of a clearly established right because the clearly established right is one to be protected from the known risks of suicide, and Loflin, Yount, and … , ‘whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged infraction.’”

Muhammad v. Close

798 F. Supp. 2d 869 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 8, 2011

Qualified immunity The defendant first raised the issue of qualified immunity in its supplemental brief in this Court after the latest remand. In English v. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects government actors performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when them conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Jeffrey Moldowan v. Maureen Fournier

570 F.3d 698 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 2009

Defendants’ Qualified Immunity Claims Generally speaking, the rationale underlying the qualified immunity doctrine is that, “where an official’s duties legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not … qualified immunity.

Duaut A. Duamutef v. Melvin L. Hollins, Superintendent, and P. Almstead

297 F.3d 108 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 18, 2002

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … And because we conclude that there was no violation of a clearly established right, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Kemp v. Lawyer

846 F. Supp. 2d 1170 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 8, 2012

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects 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 … § 1983 against Defendant Turano, I do not address the second prong of the two-part qualified immunity test-namely, whether the alleged constitutional violation was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Clay v. Woodbury County

982 F. Supp. 2d 904 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Nov 6, 2013

Clay’s reliance on a “generalized right” to be free from an unreasonable search is not sufficient to “clearly establish” the specific right on which her claim hangs for purposes of “qualified immunity.” … Turning to the second prong of the “qualified immunity” analysis, whether the right was “clearly established,” see Burton, 731 F.3d at 791-92 , the decisions in Hicks v.

Mindy Kahle v. Deputy Tim Malone

477 F.3d 544 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 12, 2007

If the right was not clearly established, then the officer is protected by qualified immunity. 1. … Qualified Immunity The second question in the qualified-immunity analysis requires us to consider whether the right that Malone allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Doane v. Helenville Mutual Insurance Co.

216 Wis. 2d 345 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Jan 29, 1998

Rather, the parties' *352 disagreement centers on whether Ehle qualifies as an "owner" entitled to immunity under the statute either because his shanty constitutes a statutory "structure," or because he is an "occupier," … CONCLUSION A portable ice shanty located on a frozen lake does not qualify as recreational "property" and is insufficient to establish its owner as an "occupant" of the lake entitled to recreational immunity.

Opinion Number

Louisiana Attorney General Reports · Jan 31, 2000

E.D. 1998), proves helpful, as the court stated: Two kinds of immunity exists for government officials absolute immunity and qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects an official from liability unless the official violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

William O. Fuller v. Joe Carollo

977 F.3d 1012 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 25, 2020

Carollo’s motion sought dismissal of the complaint based, in part, on qualified immunity. … The magistrate judge concluded that Carollo was not entitled to qualified immunity because his alleged conduct violated clearly established law.

Waste Conversion, Inc. v. Sims

868 F. Supp. 643 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 15, 1994

The court also found that the right to a prompt post-deprivation right was “clearly established,” and thus defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at 7). … Finally, even if defendants did violate plaintiffs’ due process rights, these rights were not “clearly established,” and thus defendants are not liable under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Caffey v. Johnson

883 F. Supp. 128 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 29, 1995

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects against individual liability for civil damages to officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … When considering a claim of qualified immunity, courts engage in a bifurcated analysis. First, it must be determined whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.