Case law

Irizarry-López v. Torres-González

363 F. Supp. 2d 7 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 18, 2005

Qualified Immunity Ortiz further self-servingly restates qualified immunity law as established by the Supreme Court and followed by the First Circuit. … In order to determine whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must determine l)whether plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation; 2)whether that right was clearly

McMillian v. Johnson

878 F. Supp. 1473 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jan 17, 1995

Additionally, Tate argues that he is entitled to the protection of qualified immunity because he did not deprive McMillian of clearly established federal right. … in conduct which violates clearly established law, then qualified immunity does not afford the defendant protection from the claim.

Marcus Hanks v. Randall Rogers

853 F.3d 738 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 5, 2017

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” White v. … App’x 453, 459–60 (5th Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (construing Deville as clearly establishing that an officer should receive no qualified immunity if he “quickly escalate[s]” an encounter with a non-threatening, passively-resisting

Dollard v. Callery

185 A.3d 694 · Superior Court of Delaware · Apr 16, 2018

“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 challenged conduct.”63 A clearly … right to fair trial—that clearly was established at the time of the challenged conduct.

Haavisto v. Perpich

498 N.W.2d 746 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jun 9, 1993

immunity grounds if they can show plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment right to be free from the “cruel and unusual” conditions was not clearly established during the time he was incarcerated); Bogard, 586 F.2d at 409 (problem of … Whether qualified immunity exists turns on whether the official violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right, the existence of which a reasonable person would have known. Id. at 674-75.

Howell v. Evans

922 F.2d 712 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 28, 1991

Absent from the order was any discussion of what the clearly established law was at the time of Howell’s death, an inquiry essential to a determination of immunity. … Generally Applicable Law As stated above, Harlow established the test for qualified immunity.

Alexander v. County of Los Angeles

64 F.3d 1315 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 29, 1995

under the clearly established principles of law governing that conduct. … Under this approach, we find that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Adams v. NaphCare, Inc.

246 F. Supp. 3d 1128 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 31, 2017

As the Magistrate Judge noted, state actors are entitled to qualified immunity from such claims “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … immunity, since it was not clearly established that the agency head bore such responsibility for her subordinates.”

Tarpley v. Miami-Dade County

212 F. Supp. 3d 1273 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 21, 2016

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … City of Cumming, 69 F.3d 1098, 1102 (11th Cir.1995) (“Should the plaintiff fail to show that the law was clearly established at the time in question, the individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.”).

Nolen v. Jackson

102 F.3d 1187 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 6, 1997

has failed to allege a violation of a clearly established right.... … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 1793, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991) (holding threshold question in a qualified immunity claim is whether a violation of a clearly established constitutional right has occurred);

Thomas v. Independence Township

463 F.3d 285 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 14, 2006

6 of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.” … Thus, “[u]nless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

Robert Sean Reed v. Campbell Cnty., Ky.

80 F.4th 734 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 30, 2023

Clearly Established Inquiry To satisfy the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis, the officers’ unconstitutional conduct must violate clearly established law. Williams, 9 F.4th at 437. … Page 21 First, cases where we have found qualified immunity cannot clearly establish a constitutional violation by negative inference.

Mosby v. Moore

716 So. 2d 551 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1998

Alternatively, their basis for the motion was that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiff's claims. … He also ruled that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities. 1. Official Capacity ¶ 30.

Halperin v. Kissinger

578 F. Supp. 231 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 13, 1984

The doctrine *234 of qualified immunity now focuses on whether a government official's conduct "violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … judgment based on qualified immunity.

Juide v. City of Ann Arbor

839 F. Supp. 497 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 15, 1993

They also assert the defense of qualified immunity, arguing that it was not clearly established law at the time of their alleged violation of Juide’s constitutional rights that (1) due process prohibited the issuance of a … In the absence of clearly established law which would preclude an in rem forfeiture proceeding if the privilege against self-incrimination is implicated to any degree, Markman and Best are entitled to .qualified immunity

Terry A. Veney v. Michael Hogan Carol Hernandez Frank D. Fleischer and Martha Knicely

70 F.3d 917 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 24, 1996

For a law to be “clearly established” in the context 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 that right. … The trial court need not deny a defendant the right to qualified immunity simply because a complaint adequately alleges violation of clearly established law.

Hawkins v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of Coffey Cnty. Kan.

376 F. Supp. 3d 1200 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 19, 2019

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that even if plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a violation of her due process rights, Maley and Phelan are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly … Alternatively, the Court finds that Maley and Phelan are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because at the time of the alleged violation, the law was not clearly established. See, e.g. , Greene v.

Sheehy v. State

250 Mont. 437 · Montana Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1991

Plaintiffs argue that the result in Davis was clearly foreshadowed under the long-standing principle of intergovernmental tax immunity and as a logical extension of the Court’s decisions in a series of cases. … The second extension of prior law took place when the Court *443 established the connection between the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity and the protection against discriminatory taxation of individuals under 4

Larsen v. Senate Of The Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania

154 F.3d 82 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 11, 1998

immunity is from suit as well as from liability, so that "[u]nless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before … on qualified immunity grounds.

Guilford v. Frost

269 F. Supp. 3d 816 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Aug 18, 2017

At a minimum, Sergeant Frost is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of the stop. … Young, 780 F.3d 998, 1010 (10th Cir. 2015) (“reciting the overarching requirement of probable cause does not pass muster in a qualified-immunity clearly-established-law assessment”).