Case law

Anderson v. City of Hopkins

805 F. Supp. 2d 712 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Mar 28, 2011

Clearly Established Right The second step in determining if qualified immunity applies is whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established. … Thus, qualified immunity does not apply as to Kreiling. IV.

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

Howard v. Board of Education of Sycamore Community Unit School District No. 427

893 F. Supp. 808 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 21, 1995

Qualified Immunity Weleker contends he is entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiffs section 1983 claim because there is no clearly established law that he had a duty to take action in response to the students’ allegedly … Absent allegations stating a violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery. Id.

Perry, Peary v. the City of Houston and George Greanias

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · May 23, 2002

Government officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity from liability for actions that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … in light of the clearly established rights.

Villagrana v. Kernan

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 12, 2025

immunity grounds. … Under Ninth Circuit law, qualified immunity is not 4 available to private defendants in a section 1983 suit. Danielson v.

Michael Alexander v. Mark McKinney

692 F.3d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 8, 2012

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Fleming v. … Claims of qualified immunity involve two questions: (1) whether the official’s con- duct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time. Surita v.

David Evans v. Patrick Baker

703 F.3d 636 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 17, 2012

Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit for damages when their conduct does not violate a “clearly established” constitutional right. See Harlow v. … To escape dismissal of a complaint on qualified immunity grounds, a plaintiff must (1) allege a violation of a right (2) that is clearly established at the time of the violation. See Pearson v.

Larenzo Irvin v. Tyler Richardson

20 F.4th 1199 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 16, 2021

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damage liability for a discretionary act that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional -4- rights … : whether the rights at issue were clearly established.

Wright v. South Arkansas Regional Health Center, Inc.

800 F.2d 199 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 2, 1986

violation of clearly established law.” … If properly supported, such an allegation could make out a violation of clearly established law and might defeat a motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity.

Velharticky v. Independent School District No. 3 of Roger Mills County

846 F. Supp. 941 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 17, 1993

Therefore, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of all Defendants and against Plaintiff. 2 QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity is available to government officials unless they violate clearly established statutory … Clearly, the board members receipt of complaints and other investigative activities does not violate a clearly established law.

Braswell v. McCamman

256 F. Supp. 3d 719 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jun 21, 2017

Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating both that the challenged conduct violates a constitutional or statutory right and that the right was so clearly established at … However, “to satisfy the second prong of the [qualified-immunity] .standard, plaintiff must show that the right was clearly established in a ‘particularized sense,’ such that a reasonable officer confronted with the same

Brian Barlow v. Officer George Ground, I.D. 9129

943 F.2d 1132 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 5, 1991

The doctrine of qualified immunity does not apply if reasonable officers would have known they were violating clearly established Constitutional rights. See White v. Pierce County, 797 F.2d 812, 815 (9th Cir.1986). … It must decide “[wjhether a reasonable official would know that she is violating that clearly established law.” Id.

Zarnow v. City of Wichita Falls, Texas

500 F.3d 401 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 13, 2007

Smith, 117 F.3d 866, 871-72 (5th Cir. 1997) (“We do not require that an official demonstrate that he did not violate clearly established federal rights; our precedent places that burden upon plaintiffs.”). … To prevail, Zarnow must show that the search was unreasonable under clearly-established law at the time of the search. See Sorenson v. Ferrie, 134 F.3d 325, 328 (5th Cir. 1998).

Foley v. Town of Lee

871 F. Supp. 2d 39 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · May 9, 2012

“The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right and (2) such right was clearly established at the time of the defendants … “A right is clearly established only if it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Id.

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.

Winburn v. Bologna

979 F. Supp. 531 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jun 12, 1997

the qualified immunity question.” … Since Defendants did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Nguyen v. Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology

236 F. Supp. 3d 947 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Feb 20, 2017

Qualified Immunity “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 … Qualified Immunity on Plaintiffs’ Race Discrimination Claims The right to be free from invidious racial discrimination is clearly established. See, e.g., Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 , 25 L.Ed. 664 (1880).

Anderson v. Recore

317 F.3d 194 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 15, 2003

The judge's qualified immunity determination followed from his conclusion that Sandin v. … Dist., 239 F.3d 246 , 250 (2d Cir.2001). 9 Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity "if either (a) the defendant's action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant

Langworthy v. Dean

37 F. Supp. 2d 417 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 8, 1999

As there is not a clearly established constitutional right to have claims of criminal activity by a private actor investigated, the doctrine of qualified immunity will bar these claims. 4 Plaintiff argues that his fight to … As the treaties do not provide the Plaintiff with a clearly established right to have his claims investigated and prosecuted, all of the Defendants are protected from suit by qualified immunity. 6 V As mentioned previously

Anderson v. Recore

317 F.3d 194 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 15, 2003

The judge’s qualified immunity determination followed from his conclusion that Sandin v. … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity “if either (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate