Case law

Redpath v. City of Overland Park

857 F. Supp. 1448 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 9, 1994

That objective test is in tension with, but not inconsistent with, a claim of qualified immunity where the existence of a violation of the clearly established law depends on the government official’s subjective intent. … When qualified immunity is granted because plaintiffs cannot establish a constitutional violation—rather than on a determination that the law was not clearly established—such a finding is equivalent to a decision on the merits

Boyer v. Mohring

994 F. Supp. 2d 649 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 2014

‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

Garcia v. Montford Unit

District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 16, 2024

Motion on Qualified Immunity Defendant appeared in this case and asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity in her answer to the complaint. (Doc. 34). … .”’); see also Backe, 691 F.3d at 648 (explaining that “this court has established a careful procedure under which a district court may defer its qualified immunity ruling if further factual development is necessary to

Braxton v. Matthews

883 F. Supp. 1068 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Apr 28, 1995

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Next the Court must examine whether Defendant is protected from suit by the doctrine of qualified immunity. In Wiley v. … if the officer’s ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’

Clark v. Coleman

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 24, 2020

To evaluate qualified immunity claims, the Fourth Circuit has adopted a two-step analysis: (1) Whether a clearly established right has been violated, and (2) whether a reasonable person in the officer’s position “would … Nev. 2018) (“And because it is clearly established that a citizen has the First Amendment right to criticize officers, even with profanity, Dennett is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.”).

Aviles v. Department of the Army

666 F. Supp. 2d 224 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 8, 2009

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 . … violated that clearly established constitutional right.”

Pierce v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections

284 F. Supp. 2d 811 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 28, 2003

Of course, the qualified immunity inquiry asks whether the constitutional right advocated by the plaintiff is clearly established, not whether a defendant’s conduct is not clearly established. … The test for whether a right is clearly established was set out by the Supreme Court: “[C]learly established rights, for purpose of qualified immunity, are ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Robinson v. City of San Diego

954 F. Supp. 2d 1010 · District Court, S.D. California · May 28, 2013

clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue. … Specific binding precedent is not required to show that a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.

Ziemba v. Armstrong

433 F. Supp. 2d 248 · District Court, D. Connecticut · May 17, 2006

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The qualified immunity inquiry requires the court to ask, first, whether the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right. Saucier v. … Qualified Immunity Argument For the reasons stated in Part II, supra, the court finds that Mangiafico is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Walker v. Davis

643 F. Supp. 2d 921 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Jul 23, 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 … For purposes of qualified immunity, the Court must also determine whether this right to be free from unreasonable seizures was clearly established at the time of pursuit.

Sims Ex Rel. Sims v. Forehand

112 F. Supp. 2d 1260 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 5, 2000

If a question of law is unsettled, it is not clearly established, and, thus, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. See Daniel v. Taylor, 808 F.2d 1401, 1403 (11th Cir.1986). … For another example of a case that found the "clearly established” requirement satisfied and denied qualified immunity without citing a previous case with similar facts, see Powell v. M.C.

Estate of Redd v. Love

62 F. Supp. 3d 1268 · District Court, D. Utah · Oct 15, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Agent Barnes is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Grendell v. Gillway

974 F. Supp. 46 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 11, 1997

immunity and, consequently, the question of whether this right was clearly established at the time Gillway acted. … qualified immunity.

Maxfield v. Bressler

20 F. Supp. 3d 1084 · District Court, D. Colorado · Nov 18, 2013

To resolve qualified immunity claims, a court must consider two elements: (1) whether a constitutional violation occurred, and (2) whether the violated right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. … However, they assert that Bresslér is entitled to qualified immunity from suit because the violated right was not clearly established law.

Vines v. City of Dallas, Tex.

851 F. Supp. 254 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 28, 1994

Defendant Hart has asserted the defense of qualified immunity to Plaintiffs claim. In determining whether Defendant Hart has established her defense of qualified immunity, the Court uses a two-prong analysis. … Defendant Hart has asserted the defense of qualified immunity to Plaintiffs claim. Therefore, the Court must decide whether Hart violated a clearly established right of the Plaintiff. The Court finds that Hart did not.

Schubert v. City of Rye

775 F. Supp. 2d 689 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2011

A government official may be entitled to qualified immunity if either his “conduct did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights or if it would have been objectively reasonable for the official to believe that his … “A defendant pleading qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss is entitled to prevail if the allegations in the complaint fail to state a claim of violation of clearly established law.” Id.

Frias v. Demings

823 F. Supp. 2d 1279 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 14, 2011

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability as long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The second step in determining whether qualified immunity applies is whether the law was “clearly established.” Gonzalez, 325 F.3d at 1234 .

Greene v. Knight

564 F. Supp. 2d 604 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 29, 2008

demonstrating that the official’s conduct violated clearly established law. … Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue.

Yeasin v. Durham

224 F. Supp. 3d 1194 · District Court, D. Kansas · Dec 1, 2016

plaintiff shows (1) the defendant’s violation of a constitutional right; and (2) that the right the official violated was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. 35 Accordingly, the qualified immunity … immunity from a claim of a First Amendment violation as such rights were not clearly established); Bell v.

Buzzi v. Gomez

24 F. Supp. 2d 1352 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 28, 1998

Substantiating Violations of Clearly Established Constitutional Law To overcome qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must show that: (1) Alvarez violated a federal constitutional right; and (2) that the right was clearly established … clearly established law.