Case law

Smith v. Peyman

93 F. Supp. 3d 738 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Mar 18, 2015

clearly established constitutional law. … The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 , 122 S.Ct. 2508 , 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002).

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 .

Rand v. Lavoie

2017 DNH 177 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Sep 5, 2017

Legal Standard To overcome Lavoie’s qualified immunity defense, Rand must show that Lavoie “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Qualified immunity attaches unless Lavoie “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Mullenix, 136 S. Ct. at 308 (citation omitted).

Kirk Wayne McBride, Sr. v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Aug 28, 2008

Government officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity from a suit for damages so long as the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which … Qualified immunity shields an officer if a reasonable officer could have believed the action to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed. Hunter v.

Montanez v. Celaya

49 F. Supp. 3d 1010 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 8, 2014

Qualifíed Immunity “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages for torts committed while performing discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory … However, the Eleventh Circuit found that the police officer in question was entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of McClish’s arrest, the law was not clearly established.

Willingham v. Loughnan

261 F.3d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 15, 2001

The Officer Defendants argue, most substantively, that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their acts violated no clearly established law at the pertinent time. … established preexisting law for qualified immunity purposes.

Micah Jessop v. City of Fresno

918 F.3d 1031 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 20, 2019

ANALYSIS “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 … Assuming that to be true, however, the City Officers are entitled to qualified immunity because that right was not clearly established.

City of Palestine v. Ramirez

925 S.W.2d 250 · Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District (Tyler) · Jan 26, 1996

In her response to the motion for summary judgment Ramirez asserted, inter alia, that the summary judgment evidence was insufficient to establish all of the elements of qualified immunity as a matter of law. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense; the burden is on the defendant to establish each element of that defense. City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 S.W.2d 650, 653 (Tex.1994); Rhodes v.

John Benavidez v. County of San Diego

993 F.3d 1134 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 12, 2021

“Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … For a court to determine that a state actor is not entitled to qualified immunity under section 1983, there must be a constitutional violation on the facts alleged, and the constitutional right violated must be “clearly established

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.

McGaughey v. City of Chicago

664 F. Supp. 1131 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 18, 1987

Furthermore, he contends that the individual defendants cannot avail themselves of the affirmative defense of qualified immunity because their conduct constituted a violation of clearly established constitutional rights. … They also contend that the law regarding arrests for disorderly conduct was not clearly established at the time they arrested McGaughey so they are entitled to qualified immunity under Harlow v.

Muhammad v. District of Columbia

881 F. Supp. 2d 115 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 8, 2012

Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 614 (1999) (holding that qualified immunity turns upon the “objective legal reasonableness of the officers' action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established … “[T]he protection of qualified immunity is available if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed that [his or her actions were] lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officers possessed.’ ”

DeWald v. Wyner

674 So. 2d 836 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 15, 1996

It is well settled that public officials are immune in their individual capacities from suits for damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In this case immunity turns on the second element, namely whether defendants' conduct violated clearly established constitutional law. If applicable law is unsettled, immunity necessarily results. Nicholson v.

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.

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.

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

Edwards v. Williams

170 F. Supp. 2d 727 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Oct 31, 2001

The defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity, as the complaint does not plead any alleged conduct that violated clearly and particularly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of … Because the plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to establish a constitutional violation, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 2. Was the Right Clearly Established?

Kimberly Burns-Fisher v. Anna Romero-Lehrer

57 F.4th 421 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 13, 2023

Pendleton, 249 F.3d 279, 285 (4th Cir. 2001) (“A district court’s denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine, because qualified immunity confers immunity … Because it was not clearly established at the time of the incident that a defendant’s failure to act gives rise to a state-created danger claim, we conclude that Appellant is entitled to qualified immunity

Dollar Loan Center of SD v. Bret Afdahl

933 F.3d 1019 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 14, 2019

“Absent either a clearly established right or a constitutional violation, qualified immunity applies.” Dillard v. … In a qualified immunity analysis, “a right is ‘clearly established’ if the ‘contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’”

Czechorowski v. State

178 Vt. 524 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Mar 22, 2005

Supp. 2d 241, 249 (N.D.N.Y. 2001) (caseworker who relied on autistic child’s allegations of sexual abuse through FC did not violate dearly established standard and therefore was entitled to qualified immunity). … See Cook, 167 Vt. at 509 , 712 A.2d at 384 (analyzing official’s conduct in relation to clearly established law). ¶ 27.