Case law

Torres v. Goddard

194 F. Supp. 3d 886 · District Court, D. Arizona · Jul 1, 2016

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … As a matter of law, clearly established law for qualified immunity purposes is the law clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.

Martinique Stoudemire v. Mich. Dep't of Corrections

705 F.3d 560 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 31, 2013

Taken together, these sentences clearly suffice as an assertion of qualified immunity. … Dunagan focuses on whether the law regarding same- sex strip searches is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes. However, No. 11-1588 Stoudemire v. Mich.

DE MONTALVO v. DIXON

District Court, N.D. Florida · Oct 17, 2024

FDC Defendants also assert qualified immunity. ECF No. 32 at 24-25. III. … proceed to the next step of determining if a constitutional right was clearly established”).

State v. SUPERIOR CT. IN CTY. OF MARICOPA

185 Ariz. 47 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Feb 20, 1996

Qualified immunity shields government agents if a reasonable government officer could have believed his actions to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed at the time. Hunter v. … First, no “clearly established” legal rights were violated. Plaintiff Donaldson bears the burden of showing that “the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.” Romero v.

Hernandez v. Mesa

885 F.3d 811 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 20, 2018

But the extraterritorial application of these protections to Hernández was not clearly established at the time of Mesa's tortious conduct. Mesa is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. See Mullenix v. … . ----, 136 S.Ct. 305 , 308, 193 L.Ed.2d 255 (2015) ("The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

DiMeglio v. Haines

45 F.3d 790 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 2, 1995

“clearly established law” has an acquired meaning in the qualified immunity context referencing law at the time of the challenged conduct. … interest may make it more difficult to find the law ‘clearly established’ when assessing claims of qualified immunity.”); Borucki v.

Mawson v. Pittston Police Department

145 F. Supp. 3d 363 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 2015

The defendant objects to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the law was clearly established. (Doc. 93, p. 13). … Again, for the purposes of qualified immunity, the court must determine whether the facts — taken in the light most favorable to the non-moving party — establish a violation of clearly established law and that a reasonable

S. B. v. County of San Diego

864 F.3d 1010 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 12, 2017

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 9 clearly established law, so qualified immunity was not appropriate. … Moreover, even if district court decisions could clearly establish the law for purposes of qualified immunity, the cases on which plaintiffs rely are insufficient.

In re Davenport Hotel Building Collapse

Supreme Court of Iowa · Nov 7, 2025

established” law under § 670.4A(3). … We also noted in Doe a fundamental incompatibility between the federal “clearly established” standard and the nature of a common law negligence action that would somehow incorporate such a standard. Id.

Roxanne Adams v. Debra Ferguson

884 F.3d 219 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 6, 2018

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. … “Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

Young v. Scales

873 A.2d 337 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 2005

that a defendant had qualified immunity. … Thus, to overcome qualified immunity, the right allegedly violated “must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that

Juan Hernandez v. City of San Jose

897 F.3d 1125 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 27, 2018

Taking the allegations in the operative complaint as true, and reading them in the light most favorable to the Attendees, we find the Officers violated clearly established rights and are not entitled to qualified immunity … Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects government officers ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Anthony Martinez v. James Yates

585 F. App'x 460 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 17, 2014

There is no clearly established Supreme Court precedent dictating when a trial in state court must be severed. Runningeagle v. … However, we have held that this footnote in Lane does not qualify as clearly established federal law under federal habeas law. Collins v.

Lee v. Greene

114 N.C. App. 580 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 3, 1994

The test of qualified immunity for police officers sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is whether in performing discretionary functions, they have engaged in conduct that violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … The threshold question regarding a defense of qualified immunity is whether defendants have violated a “clearly established” right. Pritchett, 973 F.2d at 313 .

Bellow v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University

913 F. Supp. 2d 279 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Dec 21, 2012

The qualified immunity determination is a two-step inquiry. First, the court must decide whether a plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a violation of a clearly established right. Id. … Consequently, in addressing the parties’ qualified immunity arguments with regard to the FMLA, the first question that this Court must answer is: Do Plaintiffs allegations establish a violation of a clearly established right

Vanessa Cole v. Dennis Hutchins

959 F.3d 1127 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 28, 2020

“Our jurisdiction to consider an appeal of an order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity is limited to the purely legal issue of whether the facts . . . alleged support a claim of violation of clearly established … The law was clearly established in two respects relevant here.

Rangel v. Lorum

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Oct 23, 2019

Haessig, 788 F.3d 662, 667 (7th Cir. 2015) (affirming denial of qualified immunity for supervisor of parole agent who failed to respond to complaints by plaintiff parolee that agent was sexually harassing him). … Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1197 (9th Cir. 2000) (“In the simplest and most absolute of terms, the Eighth Amendment right of prisoners to be free from sexual abuse was unquestionably clearly established prior to the time of

Atkinson v. Pustilnik

District Court, S.D. Texas · May 2, 2024

established, meaning qualified immunity was warranted) … Violation of a Clearly Established Right The second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry requires me to determine if the “right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant

James T. Voutour v. Harold Vitale, James T. Voutour v. Harold Vitale

761 F.2d 812 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 9, 1985

established statutory or *819 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Like Wheeler, Chief Forni raised a qualified good faith immunity defense against Voutour’s section 1983 claim.

Harmon v. City of Arlington

16 F.4th 1159 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 26, 2021

First, the plaintiffs argue that Tran is not entitled to qualified immunity because his use of excessive force violated a clearly established constitutional right. … To overcome qualified immunity, the law must be so clearly established that every reasonable officer in this factual context—an officer holding onto the side of a fleeing car where the driver has ignored instructions