Case law

Young v. Selk

508 F.3d 868 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 28, 2007

“Qualified immunity protects state officials from civil liability for actions that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Shockency v. … The defendants in their brief do not focus on this aspect of qualified immunity. First of all, in any case, it was no doubt clearly established long before 2004, when Mr.

Pagán-Cuebas v. Vera-Monroig

91 F. Supp. 2d 464 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 27, 2000

Qualified Immunity Defense. … Qualified immunity shields government officers performing discretionary functions from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right which should have been

Jessica Kampschroer v. Ramsey County

840 F.3d 961 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 1, 2016

The City of Minneapolis appeals the denial of qualified immunity in the Karasov action, and numerous Minnesota counties appeal the denial of qualified immunity in the Kampschroers action. … 2) even if there is liability for such action, it was not clearly established at the time the information was accessed in these cases.

Peter Klassen v. Gaines County, Texas, and Gaines County Deputy Sheriffs Ken Ketron and Clint Low

Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) · Jul 15, 2021

“[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time. … doctrine of qualified immunity only applies to “individuals.”

Sheets v. Butera

389 F.3d 772 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 9, 2004

"If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity." Id. … As previously noted, before we determine whether the law was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, we first must determine whether the facts alleged show that the officers violated a constitutional right

Susan Lynn Roberts v. Charles Timothy Kling

144 F.3d 710 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 20, 1998

“First, the plaintiff must show the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right; second, the plaintiff must show the right the defendant’s conduct violated was clearly established such that a reasonable … Roberts attempts to cast this determination as factual and also seeks to demonstrate factual disputes on point; however, we agree with the district court that Roberts has not demonstrated that Kling violated clearly established

Donovan George Davis v. Philip B. Williams

451 F.3d 759 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 7, 2006

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … There is no question that the second step – clearly established – is satisfied, as it is clearly established that an arrest made without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment. Thornton v.

Melvin Taylor v. Edward Reilly, Jr.

685 F.3d 1110 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 17, 2012

or, in the alternative, qualified immunity. … The Court has explained, for example, that although “the right to due process of law is quite clearly established by the Due Process Clause,” that level of generality is too high for purposes of qualified immunity because

Thomas v. Holt

221 Ga. App. 345 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · May 9, 1996

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials (and the other burdens of litigation, including discovery) and from liability if their conduct violates no ‘clearly established … 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

Bird v. Lampert

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 15, 2020

(2) that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” … Clearly Established Law But even if we assume that a constitutional violation occurred, defendants Lampert, Pacheco, and Weik would still be entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established

Breuder v. Bd. of Trs. of Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 502

888 F.3d 266 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 17, 2018

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from damages under § 1983 unless they transgress clearly established law. See, e.g., Kisela v. … The members who refused even to listen to him violated his clearly established rights.

Beckinger v. TOWNSHIP OF ELIZABETH

697 F. Supp. 2d 610 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2010

A broad and generalized declaration that a clearly established federal right was violated is insufficient. … The relevant conduct in Reilly occurred prior to Garcetti at a time when the right was clearly established.

Whisman v. Rinehart

119 F.3d 1303 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 23, 1997

Qualified Immunity 17 Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Id. 21 We take a broad view of what constitutes "clearly established" under the qualified immunity analysis. Munz v. Michael, 28 F.3d 795, 799 (8th Cir.1994).

Delgado v. City of New York

86 A.D.3d 502 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 28, 2011

“A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … To be entitled to qualified immunity, it must be established that it was objectively reasonable for the police officer involved to believe that his or her conduct was appropriate under the circumstances, or that officers

James P. Martin v. Memorial Hospital at Gulfport, Wray Anderson, Mitchell Salloum, Edward Reid, and Myrtis Franke

86 F.3d 1391 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 10, 1996

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the order denying qualified immunity was collateral order immediately appealable under Cohen . … A second major conception animating all of the immunity doctrines is that “where an official’s duties legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated, the public interest may be better served

Dennis Hamilton v. Roger v. Endell

981 F.2d 1062 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 15, 1992

Qualified Immunity Claim “Government officials who perform discretionary functions are protected from liability for civil damages as long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense; if the plaintiff proves that the right allegedly violated was clearly established, the burden shifts to the defendant official to prove that his or her conduct was reasonable

Toliver v. New York City Department of Corrections

202 F. Supp. 3d 328 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 29, 2016

Mar. 27, 2006) (finding defendant who “clearly failed to request special interrogatories even after he had been invited to do so” by the Court waived qualified immunity defense). … It is true that “qualified immunity protects state officials from civil liability for actions performed in the course of their duties if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

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

Nguyen v. Grain Valley R-5 School District

353 S.W.3d 725 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 2011

Where an affirmative defense is asserted in a motion to dismiss, a trial court may dismiss the petition only if the petition clearly establishes “on its face and without exception” that the defense applies and the claim is … But a “departmentally-mandated duty” may clearly arise from sources other than statutes or regulations.

Pierce v. Smith

117 F.3d 866 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 15, 1997

For example, where the complained of conduct is a law enforcement warrantless search of a residence, qualified immunity turns not only on whether it was then clearly established that such a search required probable cause … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 , 111 S.Ct. 1789 , 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991), the Court stated that in a qualified immunity case, “the first inquiry” is whether the plaintiff has “failed to allege the violation of a clearly established