Case law

Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company v. United States of America, International Trademark Association, Amicus Curiae

86 F.3d 789 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 10, 1996

We start our analysis with the well-established proposition that the United States may not be sued without its consent. See Affiliated Ute Citizens v. … that the agency action had transgressed and establish that the statute or regulation applies to the United States.

Michael Matzell v. Anthony J. Annucci

64 F.4th 425 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 4, 2023

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for money damages for violation of a right under federal law if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Qualified immunity bars a plaintiff's claim unless (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. Francis v.

Hicks v. LeBlanc

81 F.4th 497 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 5, 2023

Appellants insist they are entitled to qualified immunity because they neither violated Hicks’ constitutional rights nor acted unreasonably in light of clearly established law. We disagree. … Having established that Hicks’ right to timely release was clearly established, we turn to the first question of qualified immunity: whether _____________________ 21 U.S.

Lane v. Nading

927 F.3d 1018 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 20, 2019

immunity because they had not violated any of Lane's clearly established constitutional rights. … The "officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was 'clearly established at the time.' " District

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.

Tracy Ray Vaughan v. James D. Ricketts

859 F.2d 736 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 14, 1988

Ricketts moved for summary judgment, claiming a qualified immunity from suit because the law governing body cavity searches of inmates was not clearly established as of March 1984. … Finally, the district court found that clearly established standards existed under the eighth and fourteenth amendments as well. The court thus refused to grant Ricketts qualified immunity on any of Vaughan’s claims.

Piphus v. Blum

108 Ohio App. 3d 218 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1995

would believe was lawful in light of “clearly established law” and “information possessed” at the time of the challenged conduct. … In the absence of that clearly established right, the appellants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Brosseau v. Haugen

543 U.S. 194 · Supreme Court of the United States · Dec 13, 2004

not entitled to qualified immunity. … We grant the petition on the second, qualified immunity question and reverse.

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.

Long v. Underwood

District Court, N.D. Alabama · Dec 4, 2019

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from suit “in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Univ., 102 F.3d 1179, 1182 (11th Cir. 1997) (stating that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss if the complaint “fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional

Eleanor Keller v. Attala County

952 F.3d 216 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 20, 2020

Without setting forth a clearly established right for which the analysis can continue, Plaintiffs have not defeated Deputy Fleming’s qualified immunity defense. … his actions violated clearly established law.

Lumry v. State

Court of Appeals of Kansas · Oct 5, 2018

In claiming qualified immunity, Blecha first contends that the law was not clearly established that he could be personally liable for the FLSA claims; in other words, Blecha asserts that it was not clearly established in … N.Y. 2014) (defendant not entitled to qualified immunity since rules governing its conduct were clearly established, even if the rules about personal liability were not clearly established).

Garcia v. Royal Bank of Canada

178 F. Supp. 2d 74 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Dec 17, 2001

Qualified Immunity Noriega contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … If no violation of a clearly established constitutional right is found, then the analysis halts because “there is qualified immunity.” Aponte Matos v.

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.

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.

Brown v. The Gap Inc.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2024

that right was clearly established.” … [on] the clearly-established prong of the standard.”).

Outlaw v. Nasworthy

250 Ga. App. 362 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jul 3, 2001

by reference to clearly established law. … On a motion for summary judgment, if the applicable law was clearly established at the time the defendant acted, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law

Daniel Chavez v. David Robinson

817 F.3d 1162 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 29, 2016

In this case, the panel determined that plaintiff’s complaint did not clearly show that he would be unable to overcome qualified immunity. … ROBINSON Chavez’s pro se complaint did not clearly show that he would be unable to overcome qualified immunity.

Guerra v. Castillo

82 F.4th 278 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 7, 2023

cause is clearly established. … When evaluating whether Castillo violated clearly established law for purposes of our qualified immunity analysis, we consider whether the law was clearly established “at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct

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.