Case law

Carr v. Scandrett

District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jul 30, 2025

“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 … However, general propositions may still be used to defeat qualified immunity in rare cases. , 843 F.3d at 484 (explaining that “a plaintiff may rely on a broader, clearly established principle that should control the

Sreeram v. Louisiana State University Medical Center-Shreveport

188 F.3d 314 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 16, 1999

The district court found that the record overwhelmingly established that Dr. Sreeram was not qualified to continue as a third year resident and was therefore unable to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. … Sreer-am failed to establish a prima facie case of sex and/or national origin discrimination because she failed to establish that she was qualified for the position in question at all relevant times.

In Re Litigation Relating to the Riot of September 22, 1991

283 Mont. 277 · Montana Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1997

There, the federal district court had denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, concluding that the defendant's actions violated clearly established law, and the Third Circuit held … Reiterating the well- established standard of qualified immunity articulated in Harlow v.

Marshall v. County of San Diego

238 Cal. App. 4th 1095 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 2015

The defense of qualified immunity "A government official sued under [section] 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established … immunity unless they violated a "clearly established" constitutional right.

STATE OF MICHIGAN v. McQUEEN

493 Mich. 135 · Michigan Supreme Court · Feb 8, 2013

’s immunity provision clearly contemplates that a registered qualifying patient’s medical use of marijuana only occur for the purpose of alleviating his own debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with his debilitating … under § 4 of the MMMA inapplicable. *155 The text of § 4(d) establishes that the MMMA intends to allow “a qualifying patient or primary caregiver” to be immune from arrest, prosecution, or penalty only if conduct related

Saenz v. G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc.

224 F. Supp. 3d 477 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Dec 20, 2016

“Therefore, a plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity must show: (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct … General Qualified Immunity Analysis Turning to whether Plaintiff has overcome Defendant Romero’s claim of qualified immunity, the Court must determine *483 whether (1) Plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established

Rico v. State

472 N.W.2d 100 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Jun 21, 1991

In section 1983 actions government officials are entitled to immunity from liability for damages unless the official’s conduct *108 violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Nevertheless, federal decisions interpreting qualified immunity under section 1983, though certainly not conclusive, are instructive when we examine an official immunity issue because section 1983 qualified immunity and common

Mark Porter v. Jean Hill

402 F. App'x 285 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 2, 2010

Defendants were entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because the law concerning the opening of prisoners’ legal mail outside their presence was not clearly established at the time the alleged violations … Ct. 808, 822 (2009) (concluding that state officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law); Sherman v.

Guthrie v. Guthrie

216 F. Supp. 3d 590 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 2016

Citizens have a clearly established right to be free from excessive force while restrained. 57 In light of this clearly established right, district courts tend to deny qualified immunity in cases where the reasonableness … Conclusion We are not aware of a clearly established right for a citizen not to be restrained while suffering a grand mal seizure. We apply qualified immunity to Mr. Guthrie’s Fourth Amendment seizure claim.

Bisbal-Ramos v. City of Mayagüez

467 F.3d 16 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 11, 2006

A public officer is not entitled to qualified immunity if he violated a plaintiff's constitutional right and if, at the time of the violation, the right was so clearly established that it would have been clear to a reasonable … It was clearly established by Branti v.

Matthews v. Rakiey

38 Mass. App. Ct. 490 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · May 5, 1995

(b) Clearly established right. We must next inquire whether the defendant’s conduct nonetheless violated a clearly established right of the plaintiff. … Since the defendant’s actions were discretionary and they did not violate any clearly established rights of the plaintiff, qualified immunity was warranted.

Garcia v. County of Merced

639 F.3d 1206 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 5, 2011

The second question is whether the right was “clearly established.” Id. at 202. … A plaintiff can sur- vive summary judgment on a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity only “if the plaintiff can both establish a substantial showing of a deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard and establish that, without

Howlett v. Warren, City of

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 16, 2019

Qualified immunity protects state actors from liability unless they violate “clearly established” federal law at the time they acted. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … Taking the second qualified immunity question first, Plaintiff had a clearly established constitutional right under the Equal Protection Clause not to be discriminated against by the City on the basis of race

Krites v. Wayne County Schools Career Center Board of Education

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 30, 2023

“To avoid the shield of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must properly plead ‘facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of … Defendants assert that Defendant Crain4 “is entitled to qualified immunity from suit because Plaintiff failed to establish that her due process rights were violated.”

Pachote v. County of Contra Costa

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 3, 2023

Qualified Immunity. 20 Nelson and Thomas also contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Pachote’s 21 Section 1983 claims. … The doctrine of “qualified immunity shields individual officers from 22 liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional 23 rights of which a reasonable person

Ascent Energy, LLC v. Reach Wireline, LLC

District Court, D. New Mexico · Aug 18, 2021

to dismiss that attack the Court’s jurisdiction or motions for summary judgment which raise qualified immunity, would be contrary to the disfavored status of stays. Id. at 5 (citing New Mexico ex rel. … Courts do routinely stay discovery for summary judgment motions on the basis of qualified immunity, and for motions to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds. See, e.g., Workman v.

KEITH v. VANDINE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 22, 2022

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009) ("[C]ourts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not 'clearly established' by prior case law, without resolving the often more difficult question whether … "Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." White v.

Hutchison v. City of Huntington

198 W. Va. 139 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1996

in light of clearly established law, to a given (for purposes of appeal) set of facts. … When dealing with hroad rights, the plaintiff bears the burden of particularizing such a right before those rights are subject to the qualified immunity test of being clearly established.

Robbins v. Bureau of Land Management

252 F. Supp. 2d 1286 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Mar 21, 2003

Qualified Immunity. … A federal employee is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established rights at issue.

United States v. Howard Taylor

728 F.2d 930 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 12, 1984

Because this testimony clearly indicated to the jury that the bank was federally insured on August 7, 1981, the date of the robbery, it satisfied the proof requirement established in Shively and Knop . … a defense witness was clearly dictum. 6 .