Case law

Bryan Santini v. Joseph Fuentes

795 F.3d 410 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 4, 2015

Background: Qualified Immunity Santini argues on appeal that the District Court erred in finding that the Trooper Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity with respect to his federal claims. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials who perform discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Walter v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 30, 2020

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity “unless the official’s 12 conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. [Citation omitted.]” Id. at 232. 13 In Saucier v. … Because the law was clearly 7 established, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. 8 9 D.

Ronda Marsh v. Phelps County

902 F.3d 745 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 15, 2018

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages in their individual capacities if their conduct did not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the plaintiff has asserted a violation of a constitutional right; (2) the alleged right is clearly established; and (3) there exists a genuine issue of material

Perez v. School Board

917 F. Supp. 2d 1261 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 17, 2013

Furthermore, because the Defendants have raised qualified immunity as a defense, Plaintiff must allege that the officers violated a clearly-established right. Williams, 102 F.3d at 1182 . … When qualified immunity is raised, Plaintiff must plead facts showing that, at the time of the beating the law clearly established that the force used by the officers was excessive.

Daniel Scott v. Mary Benson

742 F.3d 335 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 4, 2014

To determine whether qualified immunity applies, we ask “(1) whether the facts alleged or shown, construed in the light most favorable to [Scott], establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right,” and “(2) whether … that constitutional right was clearly established as of [the time of the relevant conduct], such that a reasonable official would have known that [her] actions were unlawful.”

Harvey Pelfrey v. The Estate of Steven Dewey McDowell, by and Through Brenda Roberts, as Administratrix

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · May 29, 2026

Mattingly defended in part based on qualified official immunity. … As such, Mattingly was not entitled to qualified official immunity.

Prue v. City of Syracuse

26 F.3d 14 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 6, 1994

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … To establish qualified immunity, defendants must show either that their conduct “did not violate ‘clearly established rights’ of which a reasonable person would have known, or that it was ‘objectively reasonable’ to believe

Williams v. Kaufman County

352 F.3d 994 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 8, 2003

Qualified Immunity Standard To prevail in a § 1983 suit, a plaintiff must overcome an officer’s defense of qualified immunity. Last term, in Hope v. … Whether the law was “clearly established” Although we hold today that the prolonged detention of plaintiffs was unlawful, we nonetheless agree with the district court that qualified immunity shields

Pace v. Capobianco

283 F.3d 1275 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 1, 2002

Qualified Immunity In the alternative, the individual defendants are due immunity. See generally Saucier v. … Qualified immunity protects government officials, in their individual capacities, from suit unless the law preexisting the defendant official’s supposedly wrongful act was already established to such a high degree that every

Farnworth v. Femling

125 Idaho 283 · Idaho Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1994

State, 123 Idaho 899 , 854 P.2d 242 (1993), the Court stated a three-part test to determine whether a party as *286 serting qualified immunity is entitled to the defense: 1. Was there a clearly established law? 2. … Did the conduct of the party asserting qualified immunity violate a clearly established right of the party claiming the violation? 3. Was the conduct of the party asserting qualified immunity reasonable?

Cole v. Barnes

128 F. Supp. 3d 1002 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Sep 4, 2015

Qualified Immunity Defendants Barnes and George contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs First and Fourth Amendment claims because the Sheriffs Department had probable cause, in the … Qualified immunity “protects government officials performing discretionary functions unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person in the official’s position

Raspberry v. Johnson

88 F. Supp. 2d 1319 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Feb 18, 2000

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil litigation and liability where “their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable … allegedly violated right was clearly established when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred.”

Akers v. Caperton

797 F. Supp. 514 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jul 30, 1992

Qualified Immunity The Defendants Gaston Caperton, Kenneth Dunn and Art Gleason assert the defense of qualified immunity. … Defendants assert an entitlement to qualified immunity since they were acting pursuant to statutory authority and they further allege that their conduct did not violate the Plaintiffs’ clearly established statutory or constitutional

Susan Vaughn v. Greene County, AR

438 F.3d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 17, 2006

Individual Liability of Sheriff Langston “Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a [section] 1983 claim unless his or her conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional … right; and, if so, (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation such that a reasonable official would understand his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.

Wood v. Sunn

852 F.2d 1205 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 27, 1988

The Supreme Court decided an entirely different issue in this case: precisely what must be “clearly established” for a law enforcement officer to be entitled to summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity in the context … of a warrant-less search. 4 The Supreme Court held that qualified immunity is available if a reasonable police officer could have believed that the search was justified, in light of clearly established law and the information

Jones v. State

170 Wash. 2d 338 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 4, 2010

Whether Wene and Jeppesen are entitled to qualified immunity from liability under § 1983 for violating Jones’ right to due process ¶17 When the defendant moves for summary judgment in a § 1983 suit and raises a qualified … Qualified immunity ¶27 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “[g]overnment officials performing discretionary functions” are immune from § 1983 suits “if their conduct is objectively reasonable when measured against clearly

Urbanique Production v. City of Montgomery

428 F. Supp. 2d 1193 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 28, 2006

Pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Qualified immunity bestows upon government officials a well-established “right” to avoid the burdens, costs and time of trial when the government official does not violate clearly-established constitutional norms.

Bankhead v. Knickrehm

360 F.3d 839 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 11, 2004

record] ... support a claim of violation of clearly established law." … The question on appeal is whether the summary-judgment record supports a finding that defendants violated clearly established law. Ibid.

Foulks v. Cole County, Missouri

991 F.2d 454 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 14, 1993

The defendants have failed to show that their actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. … Thus, we review Foulks' claim under the clearly established constitutional standard set forth in Estelle

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Dec 23, 2003

The test for the applicability of qualified immunity turns upon the "objective legal reasonableness of the action," assessed in light of legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time the action was taken. … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.