Case law

Hensley Ex Rel. North Carolina v. Price

876 F.3d 573 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 17, 2017

clearly established law. … It contains no argument on the "clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test. It contains no citation to cases actually applying the "clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test.

Ramirez v. Escajeda

44 F.4th 287 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 10, 2022

Qualified immunity shields an officer from liability if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. … Escajeda next argues that, fact disputes aside, he is still entitled to qualified immunity because his use of force did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. We agree.

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

Vaughan v. Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services

920 So. 2d 650 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 21, 2005

The essential qualified immunity issue in this appeal is whether, at the time of the incident, the law clearly established that a warrant was required for the search of Vaughan’s property and whether, by entering his yard … inspector to render the law, establishing that a warrant was needed, not yet clearly established.

Petcu v. State

86 P.3d 1234 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 30, 2004

Finally, he argued that Smith was not entitled to qualified immunity because she violated Petcu's clearly established right to family unity. … Once a defendant asserts a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that a clearly established constitutional right exists. Robinson, 119 Wash.2d at 65-66 , 830 P.2d 318 .

Barton Ex Rel. Estate of Barton v. Taber

820 F.3d 958 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 24, 2016

Qualified Immunity ' State officials are entitled to qualified immunity for their discretionary acts unless those acts “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Clearly Established Owens argues that Barton’s constitutional right was not clearly estab *966 lished, because he acted as a reasonable officer would under the circumstances.

Piazza v. Jefferson Cnty.

923 F.3d 947 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 9, 2019

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability unless he violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Foy v. … We don't rely on Glasscox because law can be clearly established for overcoming qualified immunity only if it is established prior to the relevant events, and Hinkle's death occurred in 2014, four years before Glasscox issued

Tesla Inc. v. Louisiana Automobile Dealers Association

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Mar 7, 2025

The Impact of Asserting Qualified Immunity on Discovery When dismissal is sought on the grounds of qualified immunity, however, a stay of discovery is virtually routine because a defendant pleading qualified … immunity operates to stay discovery only as to the defendants asserting qualified immunity, not to co-defendants or on other claims not subject to qualified immunity.

Edward Monk v. Alvernon Rogers

2021 Ark. App. 148 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 7, 2021

from damages under section 1983 7 unless they transgress “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Accordingly, Rogers is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the facts alleged, construed in a light most favorable to Monk, establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly

Lintz v. Skipski

815 F. Supp. 1066 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Feb 23, 1993

They argue that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs’ rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violations and also ask for reconsideration of their conspiracy claim. … Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages liability, provided their conduct “does not vio-' late clearly established statutory or

Robinett v. Carlisle

928 S.W.2d 623 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Aug 15, 1996

... qualified immunity.” … Police officers are immune if they could have reasonably believed their actions to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information the officers possessed. Hunter v.

William Anderson v. City of Minneapolis

934 F.3d 876 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 20, 2019

Because Jacob has failed to identify a clearly established right, we hold the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … As such, it does not clearly establish a right that defeats the individual defendants’ qualified immunity defenses.

Garcia v. Las Vegas Medical Center

112 N.M. 441 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 1991

One issue is qualified immunity. A public official is not liable for damages under Section 1983 unless the right violated by the official was clearly established at the time of the violation. … Although Ex parte Romero may be persuasive precedent, it cannot be said to make the federal law clearly established so as to overcome qualified immunity if decisions in other jurisdictions are to the contrary.

Aldarondo Lugo v. Municipality of Toa Baja

329 F. Supp. 2d 234 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 6, 2004

Then, Defendants paid lip service to the first and third prongs of the qualified immunity test, and addressed the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry at length: whether the right was clearly established. … The Court undertook an analysis of qualified immunity with the record before it. The law was clearly established, the second prong was met, but that was not dispositive of the defense.

Venable v. Keever

61 F. Supp. 2d 552 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 24, 1999

Defendants assert that they are each entitled to qualified immunity from suit because in filing the counterclaim Keever was performing a discretionary act, did not violate any clearly established constitutional right of which … Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue.

Seekamp v. Michaud

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 27, 1997

immunity. … immunity claims.

Phillip Turner v. Driver

848 F.3d 678 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 16, 2017

The court reasoned that Turner failed to meet his burden of showing that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because he failed to show that their actions violated any of his clearly established statutory … violates that right.” 17 Thus, the right must already be clearly established “at the time of the challenged conduct.” 18 When considering whether a defendant is entitled to *686 qualified immunity, the court “must ask whether

El Dia, Inc. v. Rossello

20 F. Supp. 2d 296 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 28, 1998

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense shielding public officials from civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate any clearly-established statutory or constitutional right of which a … To determine whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity protection from the claims in Count I, we must determine whether the right claimed is a clearly-established one.

Gaymon v. Borough of Collingdale

150 F. Supp. 3d 457 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2015

Defendants sought to redefine the focus of the qualified immunity analysis to whether there was a clearly established “First Amendment right to record” police, officers performing their official duties at the time of the … To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must allege facts showing that the Defendant officers’ conduct (1) “violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’

Dangler v. New York City Off Track Betting Corp.

193 F.3d 130 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 23, 1999

The court noted that at the time of Dangler’s termination, “it was not clearly established in this Circuit that the policymaker exception did not immunize employers from liability in Pickering type situations,” 1998 WL 599711 … did not- violate a clearly established constitutional right.