Case law

Dana West v. Susan Murphy

771 F.3d 209 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 14, 2014

Determining whether qualified immunity applies involves a two-prong inquiry: “whether the facts ... make out a violation of a constitutional right” and “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of … This temporal element inheres in qualified immunity because the inquiry into “clearly established law” is tethered to the need for notice.

Barker v. Goodrich

649 F.3d 428 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2011

On January 10, 2010, the magistrate judge granted summary judgment to all Defendants on the basis of qualified immunity, finding that the evidence established a constitutional violation, but the right at issue was not clearly … Accordingly, the constitutional right was clearly established and we REVERSE the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to all Defendants. III.

Hale v. Duvall

268 F. Supp. 3d 1161 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jul 27, 2017

P. 12(b)(6) based on the defense of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for, civil damages, .insofar as their-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Gerhardt v. Mares

179 F. Supp. 3d 1006 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jan 20, 2016

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis. … WOODS DID NOT VIOLATE GER-HARDT’S CLEARLY ESTABLISHED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND IS THUS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.

Myers v. City of Hartford

84 Conn. App. 395 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Aug 10, 2004

for qualified governmental immunity, *398 rather than under § 52-557n (a) (2), on which the court relied in directing a verdict for the defendants. … Section 7-465 clearly states that governmental immunity will *401 not be allowed as a defense in an indemnification claim, except that the municipality will not be hable for the wilful and wanton acts of its employees.

Gill v. Devlin

867 F. Supp. 2d 849 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 12, 2012

Therefore, unless the pleadings plausibly state a claim of an objectively unreasonable violation of clearly-established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before full discovery is commenced … CONCLUSION Gill has plausibly alleged the violation of her clearly established equal-protection rights.

Padilla v. Mason

169 S.W.3d 493 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Jul 28, 2005

of qualified immunity and official immunity. … Because there was no clearly established rule which would prohibit Mason from using the force that he did, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Vincent v. Yelich Earley v. Annucci

718 F.3d 157 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 4, 2013

For the reasons that follow, we 15 conclude that Earley I, an appeal from the denial of habeas corpus, did not rule that those rights were 16 clearly established by Wampler with respect to a defense of qualified immunity … That AEDPA question is 9 not the same as whether a federal right is clearly established for purposes of denying an official 10 qualified immunity: The conclusion that a "legal proposition was 'clearly established'

Pendleton v. Goord

849 F. Supp. 2d 324 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 27, 2012

Legal Standard Government actors may be shielded from liability for civil damages by qualified immunity, i.e., if their “conduct did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights, or if it would have been objectively … Defendants argue that the Second Circuit’s decision in Earley did not clearly establish, for the purposes of qualified immunity, that the administrative imposition of a period of PRS violated a constitutional right.

Macri v. Brower

District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 30, 2024

Finally, to overcome the defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the (7) constitutional right he contends was violated was clearly established. … Mims misapprehends exactly what law must be clearly established for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis.

Lang v. City of Nacogdoches

942 S.W.2d 752 · Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District (Tyler) · Mar 27, 1997

In suits alleging illegal arrest, the qualified immunity determination turns on whether a reasonable officer could have believed the arrest to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officer … the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken. *767 Anderson v.

Byrd v. Haas

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 23, 2020

Qualified Immunity for RLUIPA Claims Qualified immunity is unavailable for the RLUIPA claims in this case. … And qualified immunity only applies to claims for money damages, not claims for injunctive or declaratory relief. See Flagner v.

Adams v. Lindsey

759 F. Supp. 795 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 14, 1991

A Clearly Established Seizure: In Anderson, supra, the Court explained that the relevant legal rule under which the qualified immunity issue is judged must be fact specific. … ’ entitlement to qualified immunity.

Curtis Stewart v. Anne Precythe

91 F.4th 944 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 30, 2024

As relevant here, the district court denied the motion for qualified immunity, concluding that “Stewart has sufficiently alleged that Precythe violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the … Finding no allegation of a constitutional violation in the complaint, we need not consider whether the right was clearly established to conclude that Precythe is entitled to qualified immunity. Kulkay v.

Maldonado v. Marthenz

District Court, D. New Mexico · Jan 18, 2024

For federal habeas petitions brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), Strickland is clearly established federal law. … See Williams, 529 U.S. at 390 (“It is past question that the rule set forth in Strickland qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.’”).

Shedlock v. Department of Correction

442 Mass. 844 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Dec 8, 2004

Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991) (right must be clearly established “at the time the defendant acted” to overcome defense of qualified immunity). … However, the issue whether a statutory right is “clearly established” for purposes of overcoming qualified immunity is not a matter of counting up the number of decisions that have gone each way and treating as “clearly established

Charles Mitchell v. Josh Shearrer

729 F.3d 1070 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 10, 2013

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known … Our second inquiry in considering the denial of qualified immunity is whether the right violated was clearly established. Whether the facts alleged support such a claim is a legal question for the court to decide.

Estate of Joseph Valverde v. Dodge

967 F.3d 1049 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 30, 2020

On this issue we rely on the second prong of qualified immunity, the absence of clearly established law to support Plaintiff’s claim. … Prong Two - Clearly Established Law Whether the district court properly denied qualified immunity to Sergeant Dodge turns on whether the Estate has shown that his challenged conduct violated clearly established law

Goodwin v. City of Fultondale

706 So. 2d 766 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Oct 17, 1997

immunity because their actions violated clearly established constitutional law. … Clearly, the above testimony, alone, is insufficient to establish that Officer Hamilton was *Page 770 acting pursuant to a well-established municipal policy or custom.

Hlubek v. Pelecky

701 N.W.2d 93 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jul 22, 2005

We quoted a Supreme Court case regarding qualified immunity and the philosophy underlying it: “[T]he qualified immunity defense ‘shield[s] [government agents] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does … not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known....’