Case law

Marks v. Smith

241 F. Supp. 3d 726 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Mar 10, 2017

In their motion for summary judgment, these defendants argue Plaintiffs claims against them in their individual capacities should be dismissed, because they are protected by qualified immunity. 27 “Qualified immunity protects … public officials from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” 28 As explained by the United States Supreme Court, “qualified immuni *732 ty seeks to ensure that defendants reasonably

Nevarez v. Coleman

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jan 24, 2023

The qualified-immunity defense to such claims shields government officials who perform discretionary functions from suit and liability under section 1983, “unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory … Thus, an “officer will be entitled to qualified immunity if no constitutional violation occurred or if the conduct ‘did not violate law clearly established at the time.’” Davis v.

Manchester v. State of Louisiana

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Nov 13, 2024

Again, qualification examinations are generally conducted at the pretext stage of a Title VII failure-to-promote analysis, and even if Plaintiff were “clearly better qualified,” Toval, 614 F. … dofes] not establish that [an applicant] is clearly better qualified” (quoting Price v. Fed. Express Corp., 283 F.3d 715, 723 (5th Cir. 2002)); see also Deines v. Tex.

Schmidt v. Stassi

250 F. Supp. 3d 99 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Apr 21, 2017

Governmental officers sued in their individual capacity are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct “did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Thus, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the filming claim because filming the exterior of a ear in a public parking lot did not violated clearly established constitutional law. V.

Amato v. Office of Com'r of Securities

644 So. 2d 412 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 15, 1994

The difference between absolute immunity and qualified immunity is at absolute immunity is a complete bar against suit for damages arising from a judge's conduct, while qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects … Thus, the majority was clearly wrong in holding that Stansbury was entitled to qualified immunity from liability for his actions under LSA-R.S. 9:2798.1.

Jones v. American Alternative Insurance Corp

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Mar 31, 2022

Nonetheless, the docttine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for claims against them in their individual capacities “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Dyer, 964 F.3d at 383-85 (citing pre-2020 cases for clearly established law). Thus, Plaintiffs have successfully overcome the Police Officer Defendants’ qualified immunity defense at the motion to dismiss stage.

Kyle v. Civil Service Com'n

588 So. 2d 1154 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jan 3, 1992

Economou, 438 U.S. 478 , 98 S.Ct. 2894 , 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978). [4] However, we need not decide whether absolute immunity applies to the present factual situation since we find that the doctrine of qualified immunity is clearly … Considering the above cited principles, we now review the pleadings in this matter to determine whether the plaintiff has set forth material facts establishing that the defendants violated a clearly established right of which

Vincent v. State Through Dept. of Corrections

468 So. 2d 1329 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 1985

Skinner examined an action brought pursuant to U.S.C. 42 § 1983, which permits government officials to raise a qualified immunity defense. … A plaintiff bringing forth a "1983 action" seeking damages for deprivation of statutory rights may overcome a defendant official's qualified immunity only by showing those rights were clearly established at the time of the

Folks v. Sainato

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jul 11, 2025

Aug. 29, 2024) (per curiam) (applying the any-crime rule post-Chiaverini to evaluate an officer’s pre-Chiaverini actions “[b]ecause the qualified immunity analysis focuses on whether the law was clearly established at … Qualified immunity “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Mullenix v.

Christian v. Fontenot

672 So. 2d 436 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 8, 1996

To avoid the protection of qualified immunity on the basis that the right which *446 the official allegedly violated is "clearly established," the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official … Plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity that our cases clearly establish into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract rights. 483 U.S. at 639

Thomas ex rel. D.T. v. City of New Orleans

883 F. Supp. 2d 669 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Aug 2, 2012

The City Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Because the Plaintiffs Have Failed to Allege a Violation of a Clearly Established Constitutional Right. … The plaintiffs have cited no law to suggest that this conduct violated a clearly established right that would overcome Officer Boyd's invocation of qualified immunity. .

Washington v. Smith

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Nov 8, 2022

Qualified Immunity “Governmental officers sued in their individual capacity are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct ‘did not violate clearly established … Under the law of qualified immunity, a governmental officer may commit a constitutional violation but nevertheless be immune from suit if it was not “clearly established,” at the time that he acted, that he was

Heaney v. Roberts

147 F. Supp. 3d 600 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Dec 2, 2015

Roberts’ contention - with respect to qualified immunity is that his actions were objectively reasonable, and that on September 18, 2013, the law was not clearly established such that the actions he took constituted a First … The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry. First, a court must decide whether a plaintiffs allegation, if true, establishes a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Wyatt v.

Lucas v. Parish of Jefferson

999 F. Supp. 839 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Mar 31, 1998

Qualified immunity protects an official from liability unless the official violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Reynolds violated the Lucases clearly established rights in moving to revoke their probation.

Grigsby & Assocs., Inc. v. City of Shreveport

294 F. Supp. 3d 529 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Feb 14, 2018

A defendant who can validly raise a qualified immunity defense will enjoy its protection so long as the allegedly violated constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the violation. See id. … The qualified immunity inquiry turns on "the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken". Id. at 244, 129 S.Ct. at 822.

Mills v. City of Shreveport

58 F. Supp. 3d 677 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Sep 30, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in their performance of discretionary functions, unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.' See Ontiveros v. … clearly established right.

Earl v. Gusman

228 So. 3d 268 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Sep 27, 2017

Further, the court found that Earl |.Jailed to establish that Sheriff Gusman was not entitled to the application of the doctrines of qualified immunity or force majeure. This appeal follows. … Earl also argues that the trial court erred in applying the doctrine of qualified immunity. Louisiana Revised Statute 9:2798.1, provides in part; B.

Young v. Akal

985 F. Supp. 2d 785 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Dec 2, 2013

The court’s first inquiry in the examination of a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff has “alleg[ed] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” King v. … Qualified immunity cloaks a police officer from liability if a reasonably competent law enforcement agent would not have known that his actions violated clearly established law. Jackson v.

Franceski v. Plaquemines Parish School Board

602 F. Supp. 691 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Feb 7, 1985

rights must show that these rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue, in order to overcome a defendant official’s qualified immunity. … Plaintiff has failed to assert a clearly established right which was violated. In this regard, the instant case is indistinguishable from Davis v. Scherer, supra, which is dispositive on the issue of qualified immunity.

Notariano v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board

266 F. Supp. 3d 919 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jul 17, 2017

allegations are sufficient, Plaintiff has failed to plead a violation of any clearly established constitutional right. … “[I]f the pleadings on their face show an unreasonable violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the defense of qualified immunity will not sustain a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).” 26 “[A] plaintiff