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).

Sueiro Vázquez v. Torregrosa De La Rosa

414 F. Supp. 2d 124 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 10, 2006

established requirement of the qualified immunity defense.” … Moreover, the Court has also established that qualified immunity is immaterial to injunctive relief. Hegarty v. Somerset County, 25 F.3d 17 n. 2 (1st Cir.1994).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Rousselo v. Starling

128 N.C. App. 439 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 3, 1998

We agree and conclude that under the doctrine of qualified immunity Trooper Starling was immune from suit because a reasonable person in his position would not have known that his actions violated a clearly established right … Police officers sued under section 1983 are not protected by qualified immunity if the officers’ conduct violated “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ”

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.

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.’ ”

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.

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.

Montez v. Romer

32 F. Supp. 2d 1235 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jan 21, 1999

Further, defendants contend that the individual defendants sued in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct that either the … Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability under section 1983 where their actions do not violate clearly established statutory

Thrower v. Pennsylvania

873 F. Supp. 2d 651 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 31, 2012

Plaintiff contends that qualified immunity does not apply because Decedent’s rights were clearly established at the time the Individual Defendants acted, even if it was uncertain at that time whether their actions would subject … Instantly, Defendants’ contention that it was not clearly established law that certain portions of the Medicaid Act create individually enforceable rights misses the qualified immunity mark.

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.’”

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

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.

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