Case law

D.M. v. State

25 Neb. Ct. App. 596 · Nebraska Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 2018

Qualified immunity provides a shield from liability for public officials sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) in their individual capacities, so long as the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Dewey O. Mays, Jr., M.D. v. City of Dayton

134 F.3d 809 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 6, 1998

The district court denied summary judgment on the qualified immunity issue, finding that Gabringer was not entitled to qualified immunity because: (1) the affidavit filed by Gabringer in application for the search warrant … To overcome a defendant’s motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity, the plaintiff must: (1) identify a clearly established right alleged to have been violated; and (2) establish that a reasonable officer

Barnes v. County of Placer

654 F. Supp. 2d 1066 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 30, 2009

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is a defense to lawsuits against governmental officials arising out of the performance of their duties. … without first obtaining a warrant and keep them in custody until the Placer County Juvenile Court ordered their release did not violate clearly established law.

Womack v. Bradshaw

49 F. Supp. 3d 624 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Sep 10, 2014

An officer is “entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff], establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established … The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to inquire whether the “right that was violated was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

N.S. v. Kansas City Board of Police

35 F.4th 1111 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 31, 2022

Rather than denying qualified immunity, as it had done before, the district court determined that there had been no constitutional violation at all, clearly established or otherwise. … The key issue is whether he is entitled to qualified immunity, which depends on how we answer two questions. First, did his actions violate a constitutional right? Second, was the right clearly established?

Edwards v. Quiros

986 F.3d 187 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 27, 2021

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages as long as the officials’ conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … a reasonable person would have known.” 1 Because the district court found that prisoners do not have a clearly established right “to recreate free from restraints,” it granted qualified immunity to the defendants. 2

Dwayne Andrews v. Keith Schafer

888 F.3d 981 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 30, 2018

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a section 1983 action unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would … ; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.”

Aboufariss v. City of De Kalb

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 7, 1999

To determine whether qualified immunity applies to a defendant in section 1983 actions, courts examine whether the defendant’s conduct violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights and whether the rights were clearly established … Once the defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff carries the burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right. Forman , 104 F.3d at 957-58 .

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

Neague ex rel. Neague v. Cynkar

258 F.3d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2001

This court has held that the right to be free from excessive force is a clearly established Fourth Amendment right. Walton v. City of Southfield, 995 F.2d 1331, 1342 (6th Cir.1993). … It would not be necessary to make a qualified immunity analysis.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Oct 21, 2005

In federal court, the county may be able to claim "qualified immunity." … Qualified immunity applies to the actions of individual officers and employees who undertook the performance of their governmental duties in good faith and whose actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional

Ottman v. City of Independence

341 F.3d 751 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 3, 2003

Government officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity unless their alleged conduct violated clearly established federal constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person … Therefore, Hahl is entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Eastwood v. Department of Corrections of Oklahoma

846 F.2d 627 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 12, 1988

Lovelace in his individual capacity survives the qualified immunity defense because plaintiff has established that Mr. Lovelace knew or should have known about plaintiff’s clearly established right of privacy. … To determine the applicability of a qualified immunity defense, an appellate court must examine if the official conduct at issue “violatefd] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Gregorich v. Lund

54 F.3d 410 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 9, 1995

a “clearly established” constitutional right “of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Gregorich responds *414 that this right was clearly established. We review the district court’s decision to deny Justice Lund qualified immunity de novo. Bakalis, 35 F.3d at 322 . 2.

Estate of David E. Morgan, Jr. v. John Cook

686 F.3d 494 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 10, 2012

-3-  “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory … Evaluating a claim of qualified immunity requires a “two-step inquiry: (1) whether the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established

Guillemard-Ginorio v. Contreras-Gomez

585 F.3d 508 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 29, 2009

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 … "In administering the Court’s test, this circuit has tended to list separately the two sub-parts of the 'clearly established' prong along with the first prong and, as a result, has articulated the qualified immunity test

Amy Sanders v. Lamar Jones

845 F.3d 721 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 9, 2017

Jones is entitled to qualified immunity because Sanders cannot establish the violation of a constitutional right. … immunity grounds); see generally Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011) (holding that a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff establishes the violation of a clearly established constitutional

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.

Natasha Thomas Susan Gibbs and Edwina Lewis v. Ann Cohen Glenn Craig James Embry and Susan Fischer, in Their Individual Capacities

304 F.3d 563 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 23, 2002

a given set of facts violates clearly established law.” … Qualified Immunity We must also decide whether, in light of clearly established law applicable on the date of the eviction, a reasonable officer would have believed that Defendants’ conduct deprived Plaintiffs of their Fourth

Milfort v. Prevete

922 F. Supp. 2d 398 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 13, 2013

A qualified immunity defense is established if “(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 such law … Because there is “no question that [these rights] were clearly established at the time of the incident,” a point that Defendants concede, Defendants’ actions are protected by qualified immunity only if it was objectively