Case law

Blakely v. Andrade

360 F. Supp. 3d 453 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 23, 2019

If the court answers both the constitutional violation and clearly established questions in the affirmative, the officer is not entitled to qualified immunity. Lytle , 560 F.3d at 410 . … For purposes of qualified immunity, "clearly established" means that the "contours of the right" are "sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right."

People of Michigan v. Richard Lee Hartwick

Michigan Supreme Court · Jul 27, 2015

not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. … required to establish immunity.

Willashia Williams v. City of York

967 F.3d 252 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 24, 2020

B The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … “To resolve a claim of qualified immunity, [we] engage in a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established at

Spann v. Indiana State of

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 20, 2022

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity “because they did not violate any right that was clearly established in July of 2020.” (ECF 83 at 1.) … “Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment turns on whether the plaintiff has both (1) alleged that the official committed acts violating a clearly established right and (2)

Foreman v. PA BECKWITH

260 F. Supp. 2d 500 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Apr 10, 2003

For the defendants to avail themselves of the protection of qualified immunity, we must determine “if their actions were objectively reasonable, as evaluated in the context of the legal rules that were clearly established … We move now to the second inquiry of qualified immunity analysis to see if the right the defendants are alleged to have violated was clearly established. A.

Mildred Robinson v. Daniel Arrugueta

415 F.3d 1252 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 7, 2005

The court found, however, that under the second step the right violated was not clearly established and thus Arrugueta was entitled to qualified immunity. … established, and thus, Arrugueta is entitled to qualified immunity under this step as well.

Chapman v. Wyoming Department of Corrections

366 P.3d 499 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Jan 15, 2016

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Id., 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. at 815-16 . … [T23] Again, using the analysis for qualified immunity above, Chapman fails to *511 show there is clearly established law that would put Cpl.

Ahmad v. Department of Correction

446 Mass. 479 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 7, 2006

In January, 2003, the defendants moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The motion was denied without prejudice to permit sufficient discovery regarding the applicability of qualified immunity. … Consequently, the defendants are entitled to the protections of qualified immunity. Conclusion.

SOL v. City of Miami

776 F. Supp. 2d 1375 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Apr 11, 2011

The City submits that the contribution claim against Estevez is barred by qualified immunity unless Fritzler can demonstrate Estevez violated a clearly-established constitutional or statutory right. … He claims he already pled everything necessary to overcome qualified immunity: i.e., that Estevez did, in fact, violate maritime navigation rules, and that those navigation rules were clearly established.

Norvis Harmon v. Dallas County, Texas

927 F.3d 884 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 21, 2019

Next, he argues the district court erred in granting Evans qualified immunity on his First Amendment retaliation claim because his right to engage in the speech at issue was clearly established at the time of his termination … After ordering supplemental briefing on this point, the district court held that the law regarding Harmon’s speech was not clearly established at the time of his termination and thus Evans was entitled to qualified immunity

Atteberry v. Nocona General Hospital

430 F.3d 245 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 3, 2005

clearly established law.” … Objectively Unreasonable “To be ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity, ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates

Folks v. Sainato

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jul 11, 2025

Aug. 29, 2024) (per curiam) (applying the any-crime rule post-Chiaverini to evaluate an officer’s pre-Chiaverini actions “[b]ecause the qualified immunity analysis focuses on whether the law was clearly established at … Qualified immunity “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Mullenix v.

City of McGregor v. Janett

480 N.W.2d 576 · Court of Appeals of Iowa · Nov 26, 1991

Finally, they asserted that they were entitled to qualified immunity. … The test for qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage of a proceeding is an objective one: “to be clearly established, ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand

Vincent v. Yelich

812 F. Supp. 2d 276 · District Court, W.D. New York · Aug 29, 2011

The defense of qualified immunity shields public officials from an action for civil damages, to the extent that their challenged acts do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Because the defendants’ actions did not violate any constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violations, they are entitled to qualified immunity. *282 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons

Pacherille v. Burns

30 F. Supp. 3d 159 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 3, 2014

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity > generally protects governmental officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … However, even if the constitutional privileges “are so clearly defined that a reasonable public official would know that his actions might violate those rights, qualified ... immunity might still be available ... if it was

Parsons v. Wright

649 A.2d 1108 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 10, 1994

Whether the Wrights are entitled to a qualified immunity is a question of law for the court. … The application of the qualified immunity doctrine turns on the “objective legal reasonableness” of the official’s action viewed in light of the “clearly established” legal rules at the time the action was taken.

Adams v. Franklin

111 F. Supp. 2d 1255 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 31, 2000

Similarly, under the defense of qualified immunity, a defendant is “immune from liability” if the complaint “fails to state a violation of a ‘clearly established ... constitutional right[ ] of which a reasonable person would … As stated, the qualified immunity inquiry is "fact-specific,” and is dependent upon whether the law was clearly established on the day in question. Harris, 21 F.3d at 390 . 17 .

Oberist Lee Saunders v. George C. Duke

766 F.3d 1262 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 8, 2014

Under this doctrine, “courts may not award damages against a government official in his personal capacity unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and the right was ‘clearly established’ at the … Saunders] to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate.” Lee, 284 F.3d at 1194. With these principles in mind, we turn to the qualified immunity analysis.

Konop v. Northwestern School District

26 F. Supp. 2d 1189 · District Court, D. South Dakota · Nov 10, 1998

Qualified immunity protects state actors from civil liability when ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable *1196 person would have known.’ … qualified immunity.

People v. Tuttle

304 Mich. App. 72 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 2014

To be entitled to immunity, a qualifying patient cannot possess more than 2.5 ounces of usable marijuana and 12 marijuana plants. MCL 333.26424(a). … Section 4(f), which provides a qualified immunity for physicians, mandates that the immunity only applies to physicians that prescribe marijuana “in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship . .. .”