Case law

Strickland v. City of Crenshaw

114 F. Supp. 3d 400 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jul 20, 2015

in qualified immunity cases. … Thus, plaintiffs are clearly unable to survive a qualified immunity defense with regard to any property damage claims. .

Herman Louis Dimartini v. Lynn Jay Ferrin, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation

889 F.2d 922 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 21, 1989

immunity, arguing that his actions, even as alleged, did not violate clearly established fifth amendment rights. … Government officials performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity, from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Armstrong v. City Of Melvindale

432 F.3d 695 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 6, 2006

Qualified Immunity Framework 8 Qualified immunity shields public officials who perform discretionary functions from the necessity of defending against tort liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established … right was clearly established."

Naumovski v. Norris

934 F.3d 200 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 12, 2019

Qualified Immunity A government official is entitled to immunity from suit whenever (1) his conduct “did not violate clearly established law,” or (2) “it was objectively reasonable for [the official] to believe that … Because Naumovski has failed to produce evidence that could establish that Defendants themselves clearly violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights, Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity

Villarreal v. City of Laredo

134 F.4th 273 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 8, 2025

Ct. 2088, 2093 (2012) (qualified immunity applies unless officials “violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct”). … The qualified immunity inquiry asks whether an officer “violate[d] clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818.

Parent v. Kan. City Pub. Sch.

296 F. Supp. 3d 1111 · District Court, D. Kansas · Oct 31, 2017

Since qualified immunity requires an answer to both questions and this Court cannot answer whether there is a constitutional violation, this Court need not decide at this time whether the right was clearly established. … not clearly established.

Ada Electric Cars, LLC v. Kemp

294 P.3d 448 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 18, 2012

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing: 1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right; and 2) that the right was "clearly established … advertising that its vehicles qualified. %8 Appellant has failed to demonstrate Appellees violated its clearly established right to freedom of speech in a manner that would enable Appellant to defeat Appel-lees' qualified

Melene James v. City of Boise

158 Idaho 713 · Idaho Supreme Court · May 21, 2015

The Court explained why the “clearly established law” could not be so general that it would eliminate the rule of qualified immunity. … With respect to qualified immunity, the court of appeals held that there was no clearly established law that the officer’s “use of a police dog to search and bite was unconstitutional.” Id. at 1092 .

Rogerson v. Fitzpatrick

170 N.C. App. 387 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 17, 2005

Forsyth, for support of the proposition that when a court looks at qualified immunity, "[a]ll it need determine is a question of law." … Likewise, this Court has concluded that when ruling on the defense of qualified immunity, we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established

Maldonado v. Fontanes

568 F.3d 263 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 4, 2009

It is clear from the Supreme Court's description of the second, "clearly established" step of the qualified immunity analysis that the second step, in turn, has two aspects. … These are principles of law, and the law was sufficiently recognized by courts to be clearly established. See Wilson v.

Bledsoe v. Jefferson County

275 F. Supp. 3d 1240 · District Court, D. Kansas · Aug 4, 2017

Unless the official’s alleged conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, qualified immunity applies. Id. … Morgan’s alleged conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, qualified immunity shields him from suit. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Mr.

Hernandez Carrasquillo v. Rivera Rodriguez

281 F. Supp. 2d 329 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 2, 2003

; 2) if it does, was the constitutional right clearly established at the time of the facts alleged in the complaint? … Furthermore, we find that they may be enough to establish the reckless disregard of a clearly established constitutional right necessary to overcome Defendants’ qualified immunity.

United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga, Tennessee

768 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 18, 2014

An assertion of qualified immunity may be overcome if the defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right. … Accordingly, the seizure violated a clearly established Fourth Amendment right, and so Walsh is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. III.

Trujillo v. City of Hobbs

District Court, D. New Mexico · Jan 14, 2020

In response, Trujillo contends Defendants frame the “clearly-established prong of the qualified immunity standard” using “self-serving” evidence and testimony provided by Officer Hopper, ignoring the legal mandate that … Under Garner and its progeny, the Court finds Trujillo has satisfied the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: it was clearly established that a police officer may not shoot an unarmed man standing more than

McKally v. Perez

87 F. Supp. 3d 1310 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 6, 2015

Once the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is asserted, “unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before … Alvereze, 498 Fed.Appx. 867, 872 (11th Cir.2012) (noting “a defense of qualified immunity may be addressed in a motion to dismiss, which will be granted if the complaint.fails to allege the violation of a clearly established

Solis v. Serrett

31 F.4th 975 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 21, 2022

“Qualified immunity shields public officials sued in their individual capacities from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “The qualified immunity inquiry includes two parts.

Spacek v. Charles

928 S.W.2d 88 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Jul 18, 1996

Whether an official has immunity for an allegedly unlawful official action generally turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action as assessed in light of the legal rules clearly established at the time of the … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY UNDER THE TEXAS EDUCATION CODE In their third point of error, Spa-cek and Ramsey submit the trial court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment as to Charles’ state claims because they established

Harris v. Parrish

552 S.W.3d 475 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 6, 2018

right is clearly established, and raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official should have known that the conduct violated such established rights. … We hold that Parrish's constitutional rights were clearly established prior to Harris's actions in question. In Shannon v.

Rowe v. Carson

911 F. Supp. 389 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Jan 12, 1996

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, Mahers v. … Furthermore, I find that even if the plaintiffs right was clearly established, under the third step of the qualified immunity enquiry a reasonable probation officer would not have understood that his actions violated that

Navarro v. Block

250 F.3d 729 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 11, 2001

After reviewing the legal standards for qualified immunity, the court held: [T]he law is not clearly established that a policy of indemnifying punitive damage awards violates constitutional rights.... … Though much of the analysis under qualified immunity and the merits of a § 1983 claim overlaps, the issue of whether a right is “clearly established” is relevant only to qualified immunity.