Case law

Kameron Evans v. John Dodd

114 F.4th 946 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 15, 2024

Qualified immunity will shield the Officers “from legal liability unless: (1) [they] violated a constitutional right, and (2) that constitutional right was clearly established so that a reasonable officer would know of the … “Clearly established” means that “[t]he precedent must be clear enough that every reasonable official would interpret it to establish the particular rule the plaintiff seeks to apply.” Brown v. City of St.

Robert Pachaly, Jr. v. City of Lynchburg R.D. Viar William G. Petty, and Commonwealth of Virginia

897 F.2d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 2, 1990

A government official performing a discretionary function does so clothed with qualified immunity shielding him from civil liability as long as his actions do not violate clearly established tenets of constitutional law. … judgment for the defendant on the ground that even under the defendant’s version of the facts the defendant's conduct violated clearly established law, whether the law clearly proscribed the actions the defendant claims

Lyles v. Sparks

79 F.3d 372 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 19, 1996

but also of federal law that was "clearly established" at the time the alleged conduct occurred. … established, the district court erred in declining to afford Green and Krautheim qualified immunity from the surviving constitutional tort claims against them.

Jerry Turpin and Bonnie Turpin v. The County of Rock, Nebraska Galen Svoboda, in His Official Capacity and Jim Anderson, in His Official Capacity

262 F.3d 779 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 21, 2001

Qualified immunity shields governmental officials from personal liability if their actions, even if unlawful, were “nevertheless objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law at the time of the events in … The inquiry in determining whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity focuses on whether the Appellants have asserted a violation of a clearly-established constitutional right and, if so, whether there are genuine

Hawley v. Nelson

968 F. Supp. 1372 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Apr 4, 1997

Qualified immunity is available (1) if the law as it relates to the relevant facts was not clearly established or (2) if a reasonable official could have believed the alleged conduct was lawful in light of the clearly established … clearly established and defendants are entitled to at least qualified immunity from suit.

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.

Doe v. Flaherty

623 F.3d 577 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 19, 2010

We first address the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields a public official such as Wilcher from civil lawsuits when her conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Anglin v. City of Aspen

552 F. Supp. 2d 1205 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 29, 2008

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from individual liability when they are performing discretionary functions that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Pittman v. Nelms

87 F.3d 116 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 26, 1996

The immunity level consists of two sub-issues--whether the law governing the violation was clearly established at the time of the incident, Siegert v. … But it invokes immunity prematurely if the facts indicate no constitutional violation, clearly established or otherwise 3 Like Pittman, Graham grounded his claim on multiple provisions of the Constitution.

Watson v. City of Kansas City

185 F. Supp. 2d 1191 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 21, 2001

. • Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects state actors from liability when acting within the scope of their employment. … The Supreme Court has established a two-part approach to determine if qualified immunity applies.

Jennings v. Patton

635 F.3d 655 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 9, 2011

B The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … immunity, inquiring: (1) whether the facts that the 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 defendant’s alleged

James F. Robinson v. Solano County Brian Cauwells, Solano County Sheriff's Deputy Officer Gary Faulkner, Solano County Sheriff's Deputy Officer

218 F.3d 1030 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 12, 2000

Qualified immunity “ ‘shield[s] [government agents] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 615 , 119 S.Ct. 1692 , 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999) (“ ‘clearly established’ ” for purposes of qualified immunity does not mean that “ ‘an official action is pro *1036 tected by qualified immunity unless the

Nassau County Department of Social Services v. R.B.

23 Misc. 3d 270 · New York City Family Court · Dec 18, 2008

To qualify for an exemption respondent must first demonstrate that she holds a religious belief that is contrary to immunization. … The testimony of the DSS caseworker clearly established that the three children have never been immunized.

Brantley v. Wysocki

145 F. Supp. 3d 407 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2015

Corporal Wysocki is entitled to qualified immunity on Brantley’s First Amendment Retaliation claim “Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate … The next question is determining if Brantley’s constitutional right is clearly established.

Falkiewicz v. City of Westland

25 F. Supp. 2d 783 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 26, 1998

Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established rights. 4 Standard of Review Qualified Immunity Defendants rely upon the doctrine of qualified immunity to … Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials pferforming discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Torres-Rivera v. Calderón-Serra

328 F. Supp. 2d 237 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 5, 2004

Qualified Immunity “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Therefore, the Court has room for only one conclusion: that plaintiffs have failed to establish the second prong of the qualified immunity test, that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

HILL v. JACKSON Et Al.

336 Ga. App. 679 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Mar 24, 2016

When a party moves for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, that party bears the burden of establishing that he was entitled to the protection of said immunity. Jobling, supra at 488 (2) (a). … Moreover, the contract itself clearly establishes the duties of CMA and its employees.

Tiramani v. Johnson

307 F. Supp. 3d 31 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 8, 2018

I agree that the defendants are protected by qualified immunity. … There was no "clearly established" law prohibiting warrantless entry in similar circumstances in the absence of a sign of a break-in.

Gary Thompson v. Andy Shock

852 F.3d 786 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 28, 2017

The district court determined that Thompson’s claimed First Amendment right was not clearly established under the Pickering–Connick test, granted qualified immunity to Sheriff Shock in his individual capacity, and dismissed … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields a government official acting in his individual capacity from liability “unless his conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Rittenhouse Entertainment, Inc. v. City of Wilkes-Barre

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 7, 2021

they therefore fail to establish qualified immunity. … Nevertheless, the court still concludes that O’Hara and McGonigle are entitled to qualified immunity because, as detailed above, the right at issue in this case was not clearly established at the time of the facts of this