Case law

Bergeron v. Cabral

560 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 9, 2009

The Qualified Immunity Inquiry. A district court's ruling granting or denying a summary judgment motion premised on qualified immunity engenders de novo review. … The third prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is qualitatively different from the first two prongs.

Dewayne Cox v. Bradley Quinn

828 F.3d 227 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 6, 2016

Cleveland, 372 F.3d 294, 301 (4th Cir. 2004) (element of qualified immunity analysis is that the right in question “was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged offense” … The court further found that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because the duty of jail officials to protect prisoners from inmate violence was clearly established in April of 2011.

Williams v. Pate

463 S.W.3d 734 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 20, 2015

Appellees filed an answer asserting the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … of qualified immunity.

Thomas Ingrassia v. Carol Dicknette

825 F.3d 891 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 13, 2016

“Qualified immunity may protect government officials from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but not if their conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Defendants contend that, even if questions of material fact remain whether Ingrassia was denied adequate nutrition, the right to adequate nutrition was not clearly established, warranting qualified immunity.

Royal Crown Day Care LLC v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

746 F.3d 538 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 19, 2014

Defendants’ Qualified Immunity Defense “The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if they can establish either that (1) ‘a constitutional right was [not] violated’ or (2) ‘the right was [not] clearly established.’ … established.

Randy Berkshire v. Debra Dahl

928 F.3d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 28, 2019

“In civil suits for money damages, government officials acting in their official capacity are entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts which do not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person … Page 23 Accordingly, Berkshire has produced sufficient evidence to show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, and he can survive Sergeant Nelson’s assertion of qualified immunity.

Marglli Gallego v. Ivette Perez

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 11, 2024

DISCUSSION “Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time … “[I]f a plaintiff cannot show that the law at issue was clearly established under the first . . . method, that usually means qualified immunity is appropriate.” King v.

Amir Brandy v. City of St. Louis, Missouri

75 F.4th 908 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 28, 2023

“To defeat qualified immunity, [Brandy] must prove that: ‘(1) the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to [him], demonstrate the deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) the right was clearly established … But just because the law is clearly established does not mean there was a constitutional violation.

Peter Clayton McClendon v. City of Columbia, City of Columbia James R. Carney

305 F.3d 314 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 5, 2002

established law, and that he was not entitled to qualified immunity. … entitled to qualified immunity, finding that “the law on third-party entry into homes was [not] clearly established in April 1992.”

Baer v. Leach

2014 DNH 214 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 24, 2015

Finally, Baer argues that Leach cannot be entitled to qualified immunity because the right to be free from arrests unsupported by probable cause is clearly established, and because a reasonable officer would have known … Determining whether a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes requires assessing the right “in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.” Mullenix v.

Penate v. Hanchett

944 F.3d 358 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 13, 2019

This appeal raises issues under the clearly established law prong of the qualified immunity test for supervisory state officials. … Hanchett does not separately argue that any ruling on our part on the clearly established prong of qualified immunity is "inextricably intertwined," and so he has waived such argument. See United States v.

Coates v. Powell

639 F.3d 471 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 8, 2011

Nevertheless, the court granted Glandon qualified immunity, finding that the law did not clearly establish “at the time of this incident that an officer was required to leave a private home in the middle of a child neglect … “[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 would have

Alfredo Devargas v. Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc. T.R. Hook, Individually and in His Official Capacity Don Hardwick, Individually and in His Official Capacity, and John Does, Individually and in Their Official Capacities, Los Alamos National Laboratory Richard One Through Two, Individually and in Their Official Capacities University of California Robert Pogna, Employee Los Alamos National Laboratory, Alfredo Devargas v. Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc. T.R. Hook, Individually and in His Official Capacity Don Hardwick, Individually and in His Official Capacity, and the United States Department of Energy John Does, Individually and in Their Official Capacities Los Alamos National Laboratory Richard One Through Two, Individually and in Their Official Capacities Gary Granere, Acting Area Manager-Department of Energy Los Alamos Area Office University of California Donald Kerr, Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory Ed. C. Walterscheid, Employee Los Alamos National Laboratory John S. Herrington Robert Pogna, Employee Los Alamos National Laboratory

844 F.2d 714 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 7, 1988

to qualified immunity. … If the law was not clearly established at the time defendants acted, they are entitled to qualified immunity. Id.; Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 524 , 105 S.Ct. at 2814 .

Sugg v. Albuquerque Public School District

128 N.M. 1 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 1999

Qualified immunity is subject to the collateral order doctrine which grants this Court appellate jurisdiction over suits barred by qualified immunity because qualified immunity is a final bar to suit and is therefore immediately … that the law was clearly established at the time when the alleged violation occurred.

Patsy Talley v. Dale Folwell

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 4, 2025

established, and thus defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.” … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the

McGreal v. AT & T Corp.

892 F. Supp. 2d 996 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 24, 2012

Qualified immunity can be grounds for a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal when the allegations of the complaint, taken as true, fail to allege the violation of a clearly established right. Landstrom v. Ill. … In Tamayo , the Seventh Circuit reversed a dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity because “[tjaking all facts pleaded in [the plaintiffs] complaint as true, the defendants violated a clearly established constitutional

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

Thornhill v. Breazeale

88 F. Supp. 2d 647 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Feb 10, 2000

Plaintiffs, therefore, have alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right and satisfied the first prong of the qualified immunity test. … “The second prong of the qualified immunity test is better understood as two separate inquiries: whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident; and, if so, whether

(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

Marrero-Mendez v. Calixto-Rodriguez

830 F.3d 38 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 19, 2016

Clearly Established Law Appellants would still be entitled to qualified immunity if the right they violated was not "clearly established" at the time of their conduct. … establishes' law for the purposes of a qualified immunity analysis").