Case law

Lareños En Defensa Del Patrimonio Historico, Inc. v. Municipality of Lares

882 F. Supp. 2d 286 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 6, 2012

immunity because a reasonable person in defendant’s position would have known that his actions violated clearly established law. … Whether the Plaintiffs’ Right was Clearly Established The second prong of the test for qualified immunity requires the Court to determine whether the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights were clearly established at the time

Williams v. Belknap

154 F. Supp. 2d 1069 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 24, 2001

If the Court were to decide that the right allegedly violated was not clearly established, the doctrine of qualified immunity would shield the defendant from suit. … The Court’s conclusion that the right was clearly established, conversely, would mean that qualified immunity is no obstacle to a continuation of the suit.

(PC) Castellano v. Shrum

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 17, 2023

Legal Standard – Qualified Immunity 13 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 14 violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Ramirez–Palmer, 25 301 F.3d 1043, 1053 (9th Cir. 2002). 26 “For the second step in the qualified immunity analysis—whether the constitutional right 27 was clearly established at

Jerry Lynn Young v. Neil B. Biggers, Jr., J.W. Collins

938 F.2d 565 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 26, 1991

Public officers “are shielded 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.” Lynch v. … Herring is entitled to a qualified immunity as Sheriff.

Kyle v. Bedlion

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 1, 2016

Sergeant Bedlion Is Entitled To Qualified Immunity With Respect To Kyle’s Excessive-Force Claim Because It Was Not Clearly Established That Bedlion’s Use Of Force Violated Kyle’s Fourth Amendment … violated a clearly established right[.]” Muhammad, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 122. Therefore, Bedlion is entitled to qualified immunity on Kyle’s excessive -force claim. B.

William Manery v. Jason Lee

124 F.4th 1073 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 7, 2025

An official will be protected by qualified immunity “un- less the plaintiff shows: ‘(1) that the official violated a statu- tory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the … It was not clearly established that Lieutenant Lee’s use of deadly force was unreasonable, and, accordingly, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Jones v. Byrnes

585 F.3d 971 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 9, 2009

protection of qualified immunity. … The first question in the qualified immunity analysis is whether the plaintiff *976 has established a prima facie case of a constitutional violation.

G-69 v. Degnan

745 F. Supp. 254 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 21, 1990

Qualified Immunity With respect to qualified immunity, plaintiff must show that defendants violated some clearly established right. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … The complete lack of any analogous case requires this court to find that defendants’ conduct was not so unreasonable in light of clearly established law as to vitiate their qualified immunity.

Gasparre v. City of St. Paul

501 N.W.2d 683 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jun 22, 1993

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before commencement of discovery. Mitchell v.

Trenisha Webster v. Jennifer Westlake

41 F.4th 1004 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 27, 2022

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity in § 1983 lawsuits unless they violated a federal “statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.” City & Cnty. of S.F. v. … Although the detectives violated Webster’s Fourth Amendment rights, they are entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established on October 16, 2018. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 244.

Strange v. Spokane County

171 Wash. App. 585 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 30, 2012

The second question, specific to qualified immunity, is whether the constitutional right was clearly established given the specific context of the case before the court. … Qualified Immunity ¶20 Mr.

Hicks v. Leffler

119 Ohio App. 3d 424 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 1997

First, with regard to immunity for a federal claim, in order to defeat a defendant’s motion for summary judgment under a qualified immunity defense, a “plaintiff must: 1) identify a clearly established right alleged to have … Taken together, Hunter and Harlow stand for the proposition that, where the law has been clearly established, a mistaken decision made in extraordinary circumstances may not lead to loss of immunity.

Tucker v. Resha

648 So. 2d 1187 · Supreme Court of Florida · Nov 10, 1994

Her petition relied in large measure on the established federal appellate mechanism for interlocutory review of orders denying summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity. [2] The district court determined that there … Under the qualified immunity doctrine, "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Danese v. Asman

670 F. Supp. 729 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 16, 1987

The Court in Anderson also held that the mere assertion of a clearly established right, at least in the context of the fourth amendment, is insufficient to defeat the qualified immunity defense. … Qualified immunity is not applicable.

Emerson v. City of New York

740 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 19, 2010

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity “when they perform discretionary functions if either (1) their conduct did not violate clearly-established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or ( … If the right is not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, then government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity. See Safford Unified School District v.

Ensey v. Culhane

727 A.2d 687 · Supreme Court of Rhode Island · Mar 30, 1999

Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 , 112 S.Ct. 534 , 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991), the Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, made the following observation regarding qualified immunity: “Our cases establish that qualified immunity shields … Thus, the determination of qualified immunity on summary judgment has clearly been held to be appropriate.

JL ex rel. Thompson v. New Mexico Department of Health

169 F. Supp. 3d 1194 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 4, 2016

Although qualified immunity is most often raised at the summary judgment stage, the Tenth Circuit has recognized the propriety of raising a qualified immunity defense in a motion to dismiss. … Defendants argue that they are shielded by qualified immunity from Plaintiffs’ substantive due process claims because the rights that Plaintiffs assert were not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct that

Crowell v. Kirkpatrick

667 F. Supp. 2d 391 · District Court, D. Vermont · Sep 14, 2009

“clearly established” right. … “If the right [alleged to be violated] was not clearly established ..., then qualified immunity shields the defendant.” Walczyk, 496 F.3d at 154 .

DANIELS v. COOKE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 12, 2022

In other words, qualified immunity is appropriate when the clearly established law, as applied to the facts, "would have left objectively reasonable officials in a state of uncertainty." Horshaw v. … Under some "extraordinary circumstances," an official may be entitled to qualified immunity based on reasonable ignorance of clearly established law governing the official's conduct. Harlow v.

Parker v. LeBlanc

73 F.4th 400 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 17, 2023

Qualified immunity involves answering two questions: (1) “whether the officer violated a constitutional right,” and (2) “whether the ‘right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of [the] alleged misconduct. … Unlike the plaintiffs in Joseph, Parker identified cases in his district court briefing, as well as in his briefing to this court, that addressed the clearly-established-law prong of the qualified immunity analysis