1. Steffenhagen v. Armontrout Copy cite
   749 F. Supp. 997 W.D. Missouri October 11, 1990 No. 88-4348-CV-C-9
   Not cited

   Thus, the threshold question in determining whether defendants in this case are entitled to qualified immunity is whether their conduct violated *1000 a “clearly established” constitutional right.

   Defendants argue that because there was no “clearly established” constitutional right to a parent-child relationship at the time of Mark’s death, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

   This right was clearly established at the time of Mark’s death. Whether Mark’s parents had a clearly established right to sue is irrelevant to the qualified immunity determination. Furthermore, defendants’ argument is illogical.

2. Keil v. TRIVELINE Copy cite
   720 F. Supp. 2d 1088 W.D. Missouri June 24, 2010 No. 09-3417-CV-S-RED
   Cited by 1

   Plaintiff argues he is entitled to limited discovery on the qualified immunity issue. In Harlow v.

   However, subsequent United States Supreme Court cases reveal that limited discovery on the qualified immunity issue is allowed, so long as the plaintiffs allegations state a violation of clearly established law. See Mitchell v.

   In Mitchell, the Court opined, Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.

3. Thunderhawk v. Morton, County of, North Dakota Copy cite
   D. North Dakota November 6, 2023 No. 1:18-cv-00212
   Not cited

   However, to defeat an asserted qualified immunity defense, the plaintiffs have the burden to show that their asserted right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Quraishi v. St.

   Id. at 687 . [¶12] None of these cases put the officers in this case on notice their activities were unconstitutional as required under the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity analysis.

   Plaintiffs have failed to provide a factually similar case sufficient to support the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

4. Wolfe v. Stephens Copy cite
   W.D. Arkansas March 2, 2023 No. 2:22-cv-02048
   Not cited

   “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 would

   Clearly Established Qualified immunity does not apply where the conduct at issue violates clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 231 .

   Because the rights allegedly violated were clearly established at the time of the arrest, qualified immunity will be denied.

5. Covert v. Kelley Copy cite
   E.D. Arkansas January 27, 2023 No. 4:20-cv-00202
   Not cited

   The Alleged Constitutional Right Was Not Clearly Established Alternatively, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Covert has failed to demonstrate the existence of a clearly established right.

   entitled to qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established).

   The Eighth Circuit has described the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity as follows: Qualified immunity shields a government official from suit under § 1983 if his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

6. Larson v. Sanner Copy cite
   D. Minnesota November 13, 2019 No. 0:17-cv-00063
   Not cited

   Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit unless “their conduct . . . violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

   Defendants in both cases assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate Larson’s rights, and in any event the rights he claims were not clearly established.

   Larson cites no case to rebut their qualified immunity defense, nor does he provide any explanation of a clearly established constitutional violation or even contend that Defendants’ actions were unlawful.

7. Kuklin v. Regents of the University of Minnesota Copy cite
   D. Minnesota September 6, 2018 No. 0:17-cv-05416
   Not cited

   Plaintiff objects to the R&R’s conclusion that there is “no clearly established right to due process in the context of an academic dismissal.” ECF No. 56 at 1.

   However, even if the Court assumes that a clearly established right to due process exists, qualified immunity still bars his claim.

   Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless the officials (1) violated a constitutional right that (2) was “clearly established at the time such that a reasonable person would have known that his conduct violated

8. Fritts v. Payne Copy cite
   E.D. Arkansas September 4, 2020 No. 5:16-cv-00141
   Not cited

   The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge, though, that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the law on that point is not clearly established and was not at the time of the alleged violation.

   Fritts also objects to the Court considering qualified immunity at all. The Defendants pleaded qualified immunity and invoked it in passing in their motion for summary judgment. Doc. 110at1.

   The Magistrate Judge addressed qualified immunity, however, and this Court therefore gave both sides an opportunity to be heard on whether the right at issue was clearly established.

9. High School Servicos Educacionais, Ltda. v. Choi Copy cite
   W.D. Missouri January 16, 2024 No. 4:21-cv-00029
   Not cited

   Plaintiff does not dispute qualified immunity could apply to Defendants but argues their statutory and constitutional violations were clearly established, so Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

   Because qualified immunity applies, Plaintiff bears the burden of showing, among other things, that any alleged violation was clearly established. See Hovick, 37 F.4th at 516 . Plaintiff has failed to do so.

   Because Plaintiff has not established the alleged rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Counts I and III. II.

10. Bell v. Jefferson County Sheriff Department Copy cite
    E.D. Missouri September 8, 2023 No. 4:21-cv-00061
    Not cited

    Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would

    Discussion The relevant question is whether Defendant’s use of force violated Plaintiff’s clearly established right under the Fourth Amendment. If not, Defendant has qualified immunity as to Count I.

    Ernst, 933 F.3d 975 , 980–82 (8th Cir. 2019) (finding that arresting officer had qualified immunity because law was not clearly established at time of arrest that officer’s use of takedown maneuver against detainee who did not

11. Wyles v. Munn Copy cite
    E.D. Arkansas February 9, 2021 No. 2:20-cv-00061
    Not cited

    ADC Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established law that would put them on notice that the conduct alleged in the complaint violates the Constitution (Dkt.

    “Qualified immunity protects public officials from § 1983 damage actions if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Bradford v.

    was clearly established.”

12. Ford v. Dowd Copy cite
    772 F. Supp. 451 E.D. Missouri September 20, 1991 No. 87-0822C(6)
    Not cited

    Wilson’s motion for qualified immunity.

    A government official is entitled to qualified immunity whenever his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

    The decision to grant qualified immunity turns on a pure question of law: whether the legal norms the defendant allegedly violated were clearly established at the time of defendant’s actions. Mitchell v.

13. Carman v. City of Eden Prairie Copy cite
    622 F. Supp. 963 D. Minnesota November 27, 1985 No. Civ. 4-85-105
    Cited by 2

    Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense which shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

    § 253B.05 and its policies are contrary to clearly established constitutional rights, as well as to the language of the statute itself. Minn.Stat.

    Fair-view is thus entitled to qualified immunity because its conduct did not violate any of plaintiff’s clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

14. Peterson v. North Dakota ex rel. North Dakota University System Copy cite
    240 F. Supp. 2d 1055 D. North Dakota January 3, 2003 No. A1-02-82
    Cited by 3

    Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields state officials from civil liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

    In other words, the qualified immunity defense fails if the official violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.

    The validity of a qualified immunity defense depends not on whether a defendant acted wrongly, but whether a reasonable person would know that their actions deprived another of a known and *1062 clearly established constitutional

15. Barnes v. Green Copy cite
    E.D. Arkansas September 14, 2021 No. 4:20-cv-00067
    Not cited

    In their Summary Judgment papers, Defendants focus solely on the first prong of the qualified immunity standard and apparently concede the “clearly established” prong.

    Instead, “[a] more specific and particularized inquiry is necessary in order to assess clearly established law in the context of an assertion of qualified immunity.” Thurmond v.

    Accordingly, McKee is not entitled to qualified immunity. It was also clearly established that spraying an unresisting pretrial detainee with pepper spray violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Johnson v.

16. Duluth News-Tribune v. Medure Copy cite
    808 F. Supp. 671 D. Minnesota August 13, 1992 No. Civ. 5-91-179
    Cited by 1

    Qualified Immunity Government officials are shielded from liability under § 1983 in the performance of discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

    For qualified immunity purposes, “clearly established” law means “[t]he contours of the right [in question] must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

    A series of “burden shifts” are involved in a qualified immunity defense.

17. Jones v. Herian Copy cite
    D. Nebraska December 2, 2021 No. 8:20-cv-00365
    Not cited

    Qualified Immunity Standard “Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability in § 1983 actions when their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

    Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity on Jones’s Substantive-Due-Process Claim Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Jones does not have a clearly established right or liberty interest in

    The Court concludes that Defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly established law and they are therefore entitled to dismissal of the substantive-due-process claim on grounds of qualified immunity.

18. Evans v. Smith Copy cite
    E.D. Arkansas February 6, 2024 No. 4:20-cv-00173
    Not cited

    DISCUSSION In their Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate a clearly-established constitutional right.

    Because courts cannot deny defendants qualified immunity unless both prongs of the analysis are resolved in the plaintiff’s favor, the Court will proceed to the “clearly established” prong. Watson v.

    Thus, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis. IV. CONCLUSION IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 1.

19. Blackburn v. Jansen Copy cite
    241 F. Supp. 2d 1047 D. Nebraska January 14, 2003 No. 8:02CV275
    Not cited

    . § 1983 , is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated a “clearly established” federal statutory or constitutional right of the plaintiff.

    Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 , 122 S.Ct. 2508, 2515 , 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002), recently described “clearly established law” as follows: As we have explained, qualified immunity operates “to ensure that before they are subjected to suit,

    “Stated another way, qualified immunity shields a defendant from suit if he or she could have reasonably believed his or her conduct to be lawful ‘in light of clearly established law and the information [that the defendant] possessed

20. Ausler v. Hopgood Copy cite
    E.D. Missouri August 1, 2023 No. 4:21-cv-00644
    Not cited

    Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Ivey v.

    Under the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, Plaintiff has failed to establish any violation of his clearly established constitutional rights.

    Defendants further argue they are entitled to qualified immunity from the § 1983 excessive force claim because their conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right.

Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.