Case law

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.

Barnthouse v. City of Edmond

74 O.B.A.J. 1297 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 22, 2003

Material issues of fact for a jury exist as to: (1) whether Cochran violated Appellants' clearly established constitutional rights for purposes of his individual qualified immunity defense to the § 1988 claim; and (@)whether … Whether Cochran is entitled to qualified immunity where his conduct violated Appellants' right to due process (a constitutional right), and that right was violated by Cochran when it was clearly established at the time of

McClelland v. Katy Indep Sch Dist

63 F.4th 996 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 31, 2023

Whether McClelland’s free speech rights were clearly established “A Government official’s conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time of the challenged conduct, ‘[t]he contours … established so as to defeat qualified immunity for Hull. 2.

Oliver v. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs.

350 F. Supp. 3d 340 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 28, 2018

Qualified immunity shields *352 government officials from liability for civil damages as long as "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Because the plaintiff's right not to *353 be listed in the MSOR was not clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred, qualified immunity insulates the individual defendants in this case from liability under

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

Charles Jackson v. Billy D. Stair, III

944 F.3d 704 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 3, 2019

If so, qualified immunity does not shield the officer from liability if the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation. … Officer Stair argues that qualified immunity shields him from any potential liability related to the second tasing because Jackson did not have a clearly established right to excessive force at the time.

Denise Coley v. Lucas County, Ohio

799 F.3d 530 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 21, 2015

Gray’s argument that his actions did not violate clearly established law thus also fails. 2. … At the time of the events alleged in the complaint, those rights were clearly established.

Nevarez v. Coleman

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jan 24, 2023

The qualified-immunity defense to such claims shields government officials who perform discretionary functions from suit and liability under section 1983, “unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory … Thus, an “officer will be entitled to qualified immunity if no constitutional violation occurred or if the conduct ‘did not violate law clearly established at the time.’” Davis v.

Rogers v. Jarrett

63 F.4th 971 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 30, 2023

conduct is clearly established.”22 It just isn’t enough to identify a right as “a broad general proposition.”23 The district court did not address qualified immunity’s second step. … Griffin27 supports that Jarrett and Bridges violated clearly established law.

Flying Dog Brewery, LLLP v. Michigan Liquor Control Commission

870 F. Supp. 2d 477 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jun 28, 2012

clearly established constitutional rights. … Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the Commissioners violated any “clearly established law,” and qualified immunity therefore applies.

Doyle v. Lehi City

723 Utah Adv. Rep. 7 · Court of Appeals of Utah · Dec 6, 2012

“Qualified immunity shields [government] 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 … Accordingly, we address only the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test and need not decide whether Lehi City officials violated the right alleged by Doyle.3 ¶23 “A Government official’s conduct violates

Eastland County Cooperative Dispatch v. Poyner

64 S.W.3d 182 · Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) · Jan 10, 2002

The motions for summary judgment implicated the doctrines of sovereign immunity, official immunity, and qualified immunity. … Was that general prohibition the source for clearly established law which the officers violated in this case?

Boston v. Suffolk Cnty.

326 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 9, 2018

certainly circumstances where an intoxicated person's statement that he or she does not need medical treatment should not be honored because it is inconsistent with other objective facts indicating that hospitalization is clearly … Plaintiff introduced, through deposition testimony, that Rangers Sokol and Paterson had never received any training from Smithtown on how to identify drugs; how drugs affect people; how to deal with individuals who are clearly

Estate of Lockett ex rel. Lockett v. Fallin

841 F.3d 1098 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 15, 2016

Qualified Immunity All Appellees claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects government, officials from suit, not just from liability. Mitchell v. … Thus, Appellees have violated no clearly established law. D. Quasi-Judicial Immunity Dr.

United States v. Rivera

658 F.3d 1073 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 23, 2011

qualifies as a predi- cate offense. … “Our purpose is to determine whether documentation or judicially noticeable facts clearly establish that the defendant pleaded guilty to facts covered by the predicate offense.” Id. at 968.

Sawyer v. Coleman

245 Ga. App. 37 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jul 12, 2000

This requirement that plaintiff show a clearly established right is a strenuous one: For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such … In establishing that a right is clearly established so as to overcome a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must rely upon specific, supporting case law: General propositions have little to do with the concept of qualified

George Nicholas Parsons v. Wiley Tyler Raines and Calhoun County Commission

Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia · May 28, 2025

Generally stated, qualified immunity shields a government official performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when the official’s conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional … Like the circuit court, we see no facts in the petitioner’s complaint demonstrating how the deputy violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Long v. Norris

929 F.2d 1111 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 3, 1991

Thus, we venture once more into the labyrinth of deciding what makes a right “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity. In Mitchell v. … established at the time of the searches for purposes of qualified immunity.

Talley v. Brentwood Union Free School District

728 F. Supp. 2d 226 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 4, 2010

Qualified Immunity in General “Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … “[E]ven where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him at

Kirstin Johnson v. Kierstie Barr

79 F.4th 996 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 6, 2023

the law did not clearly establish that probable cause was lacking. … law did not clearly establish that probable cause was lacking.