Case law

Michael Hampton v. State of California

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 2023

Plaintiff’s due process right to familial association with her husband is therefore not “clearly established,” id. at 887 (quotation marks omitted), and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the familial-association … qualified immunity”). ** The Honorable Richard D.

Reuter v. City of New Hope

449 N.W.2d 745 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jan 2, 1990

Although the right to be free from unreasonable seizures is a clearly established right, the Supreme Court of the United States has said that a general constitutional violation alone does not dissolve the qualified immunity … The Reuters have presented no violation of a clearly established law. The Reuters assert that the case of Dick v.

Leo v. Trevino

285 S.W.3d 470 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Jun 8, 2006

Constitutional Violation The first prong of any analysis of the availability of qualified immunity requires the establishment of the violation of a “clearly established right.” Beck, 204 F.3d at 638. … The School District Employees are entitled to qualified immunity from the Trevinos’ claims, absent a showing of a violation of “clearly established constitutional law.”

Antonio v. Board of County Commissioners for the County of Cibola

District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 2, 2020

Although this determination ends the qualified immunity analysis in favor of Defendants Lucero and Hildenbrant, the Court also will examine whether Plaintiff meets the second qualified immunity prong, the “clearly established … For the above reasons, the Court determines that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she meets the clearly established right requirement, the second qualified immunity prong, necessary to defeat qualified immunity.

McGarry v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners for the Cnty. of Lincoln

294 F. Supp. 3d 1170 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Feb 28, 2018

The Court concludes that: (i) Wood used excessive force, but he is entitled to qualified immunity, because the right was not clearly established; (ii) the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the malicious prosecution … Although the Tenth Circuit has recognized a sliding scale for qualified immunity's clearly established inquiry, see Casey v.

Joshua, Jimmie v. Wachholz, Isaac

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Apr 21, 2023

All defendants now seek summary judgment on the merits of these claims, or alternatively, on their entitlement to qualified immunity. (Dkt. #25.) … Biggs, 43 F.4th 732, 736 (7th Cir. 2022) (dismissing interlocutory appeal of denial of qualified immunity because factual disputes precluded district court from determining whether defendant violated clearly established

Town of Southwest Ranches v. Kalam

980 So. 2d 1121 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 12, 2008

a clearly established right). … As Kalam’s complaint fails to show that the town officials’ conduct violated his rights in light of clearly established law, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from suit.

Adamo v. Dillon

900 F. Supp. 2d 499 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 2012

Defendant Dillon is entitled to Qualified Immunity because it is not clearly established that failing to hold a pre-ejection hearing [for Adamo] is a deprivation of Due Process. 15. … Defendant Dillon is entitled to Qualified Immunity because it is not clearly established that failing to hold a pre-ejection hearing [for Gill] is a deprivation of due process. 23.

Crystal Starnes v. Butler County Court of Common

971 F.3d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 24, 2020

s] of Appeals could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity.” … The District Court defined the violative conduct too broadly for qualified immunity purposes. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 742 (warning courts not to define clearly established law at “a high level of generality”).

GARCIA v. Northside Independent School District

District Court, W.D. Texas · Jun 23, 2025

Unreasonable Seizure2 1 The Court’s analysis of the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis is not limited to the cas- es cited by Plaintiff. See Elder v. … Marcantel, 567 F.3d (5th Cir. 2009) as clearly establishing that an officer should receive no qualified immunity if he “quickly escalate[s]” an encounter with a non-threatening, passively-resisting driver who posed little

Quinn v. Cardenas

256 Ariz. 77 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Aug 1, 2023

¶37 Both federal and state qualified immunity require an analysis of whether Cardenas violated established law or unreasonably disregarded the unlawful nature of his conduct. … Those same conclusions—that Cardenas acted as a reasonable officer would and did not violate clearly established law—preclude the opposite finding in state court (i.e., a finding that Cardenas violated established law and

JONES v. United States

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 26, 2024

Step One of the Qualified Immunity Doctrine and Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs The two-prong test for qualified immunity considers whether the facts … Qualified immunity protects a government official from civil liability and suit “insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Florida Highway Patrol, a division etc. v. Lashonta Renea Jackson, as Per. Rep. etc.

238 So. 3d 430 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 23, 2018

Reeves, 80 F.3d 1101, 1104 (6th Cir. 1996) (“Hunter established that the determination of whether qualified immunity applies to an officer’s judgment as to probable cause is one for the court, not the jury, to make”); Ansley … This appears to be the analysis undertaken by Judge Rothenberg in Pozos when she concluded that the record “clearly established” the legal question of sovereign immunity. Pozos, 42 Fla. L.

Brown v. Meda

74 Md. App. 331 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 24, 1988

[emphasis added, bracketed material in original] As was clearly stated by the Court in Moore v. … The emphasized portion of that statement is simply another way of saying that, in a case involving complex medical procedures or the exercise of professional skill and judgment, a jury is not qualified to determine whether

Trellus Richmond v. Mario J. Badia

47 F.4th 1172 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 22, 2022

Richmond further argues that Badia’s actions violated his clearly established rights, such that Badia’s qualified immunity defense fails. … “A right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes in one of three ways: (1) [Eleventh Circuit or Supreme Court] case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the constitu- tional right; (2)

Lowe v. Raemisch

864 F.3d 1205 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 25, 2017

Even with this assumption, the two officials would enjoy qualified immunity unless the denial of outdoor exercise for two years and one month had violated a clearly established constitutional right. … established and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. d.

Tygrett v. City and County of Denver a/k/a Denver Water

District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 26, 2020

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects from litigation a public official whose possible violation of a plaintiff’s civil rights was not clearly … that any constitutional violation was grounded in then- extant clearly established law.”

Ward v. Brown

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 3, 2022

As to the second part of the qualified immunity analysis, the right Brown is accused of violating was clearly established long before the September 2017 fight that gave rise to this case. … violated a clearly established right.”).

Sause v. Bauer

859 F.3d 1270 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 20, 2017

First, she argues that the defendants aren’t entitled to qualified immunity because they violated her clearly established rights under the First Amendment. … Second, she argues that even assuming the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the contours of that right aren’t clearly established, the doctrine of qualified immunity doesn’t shield them from her claims

McQueen v. Williams

587 So. 2d 918 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1991

The state law and the affidavits submitted by [McQueen] clearly establish that the Sheriff's actions, as done in the totality of circumstances, were totally discretionary. … a claim of violation of clearly established law."