Case law

Hathaway v. Bazany

507 F.3d 312 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 1, 2007

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Brosseau, 543 U.S. 194 (2004), makes it highly unlikely that the Hathaways could prevail in establishing that Bazany infringed on a clearly established right because of its emphasis on the “‘hazy border between excessive

Michael Romano v. Ivan Canuteson

11 F.3d 1140 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 17, 1993

The doctrine of qualified immunity recently has been discussed on a number of occasions by this Court. The following excerpt from Zinker v. … qualified immunity.

Ngo v. Storlie

495 F.3d 597 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 26, 2007

actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. … Here, we must ask whether Ngo’s right to be free from excessive force is clearly established.

Swear v. Lawson

288 F. Supp. 3d 669 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jan 16, 2018

in light of clearly established *679 law. 61 Plaintiff argues, however, that Lawson and Vinson are not entitled to qualified immunity because the First Amendment right to free speech is a clearly established right and their … Legal Standard on 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

Loch v. City of Litchfield

837 F. Supp. 2d 1032 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Nov 17, 2011

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, state actors are protected from civil liability when ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.’ ” Parrish v.

Eastland County Cooperative Dispatch, Clay Coffey, Wayne Bradford, Ken Wheeler, and Gerald Cozart v. Elnor Maxine Poyner, Individually and as Independent of the Estate of William Euell Poyner, and as Sole Heir of William Euell Poyner

Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) · Oct 25, 2001

The motions for summary judgment implicated the doctrines of sovereign immunity, official immunity, and qualified immunity. … Was that general prohibition the source for clearly established law which the officers violated in this case?

Beverly Nettles-Nickerson v. John Free

687 F.3d 288 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 1, 2012

The district court, however, granted the officers’ motion for summary judgment, holding that they were entitled to qualified immunity because Nettles- Nickerson did not have “a clearly established constitutional right to … Qualified immunity is warranted even if a constitutional violation has occurred if the right violated was not clearly established, Estate of Carter v.

Padilla Roman v. Hernandez Perez

381 F. Supp. 2d 17 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 8, 2005

Maine, 118 F.3d 37, 53 (1st Cir.1997). 4 QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DOCTRINE Qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions *27 from civil damages, so long as their conduct does not violate clearly … A qualified immunity defense requires a three-part analysis: “The first inquiry is whether the constitutional right asserted by plaintiffs was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Almond v. Tarver

468 F. Supp. 2d 886 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Aug 15, 2006

A defendant "is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of his conduct." Blackwell v. … In considering a claim of qualified immunity, the court must make a two-pronged inquiry: "The bifurcated test for qualified immunity is quite familiar: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established

Smith v. Lee

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Apr 22, 2022

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for claims against them in their individual capacity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If Stewart can establish the violation of his constitutional right to be free of excessive force, the Court will then analyze the second element of qualified immunity, which is whether the right was clearly established

Jean-Baptiste v. Gutierrez

680 F. Supp. 2d 1318 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 13, 2010

The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held that in this Circuit the law can be “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes, “only by decisions of the U.S. … to qualified immunity.

Chavez v. Jefferson County, Texas

District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 21, 2023

The qualified immunity defense has two prongs: (1) “whether an official’s conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right of the plaintiff”; and (2) “whether the right was clearly established … Regardless of qualified immunity’s origins, this Court is bound by Fifth Circuit precedent and Supreme Court precedent—both which recognize qualified immunity.

Pitchford v. Borough of Munhall

631 F. Supp. 2d 636 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 2007

In order for a federally protected right to be “clearly established” for the purpose of a qualified immunity inquiry, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that … Pitchford’s “asserted right” is clearly established.

Arbaugh v. BOARD OF EDUC., COUNTY OF PENDLETON

329 F. Supp. 2d 762 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Aug 6, 2004

Qualified Immunity Thompson asserts the defense of qualified immunity in his reply. … This immunity is available when the conduct of a government employee does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v.

Engel v. Buchan

778 F. Supp. 2d 846 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 4, 2011

immunity test: whether a reasonable officer would have known that his actions were unconstitutional in light of clearly established law. … , because Engel has properly stated a claim for a violation of a constitutional right, and because that right was clearly established at the time of the asserted violation, Buchan is not entitled to qualified immunity against

Gilbert v. Feld

788 F. Supp. 854 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 1992

The defense of qualified immunity can support the grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion only when the complaint itself establishes the circumstances required for a finding of qualified immunity. Green v. … Plaintiff’s complaint does not set forth facts establishing qualified immunity. A qualified immunity defense can, therefore, not be used to defeat the claim on this 12(b)(6) motion.

Watenza v. City of Dayton, 21984 (2-22-2008)

2008 Ohio 749 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2008

In addition, the defendants argued that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and that Appellant failed to establish a § 1983 complaint against the City. … Qualified immunity raised as a defense 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

Spinks v. Township of Clinton

402 N.J. Super. 465 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 11, 2008

his defense of qualified immunity. … And he acknowledged the Court's two-part test for qualified immunity: 1) the officer violated a constitutional right of a plaintiff, and 2) that right was "clearly established." Saucier v.

Turner v. Huibregtse

421 F. Supp. 2d 1149 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Mar 22, 2006

Qualified Immunity Defendants Mickelson and Esser contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct in the course of plaintiffs search did not violate any of plaintiffs clearly established constitutional … I conclude that plaintiffs claims against defendants Mickelson and Esser are not barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Heather Kerchen v. Univ. of Mich.

100 F.4th 751 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 6, 2024

Qualified immunity immunizes government officials from suit to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established law. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … Although qualified immunity may generally be better resolved on a motion for summary judgment rather than a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must still sufficiently plead facts to show a clearly established constitutional violation