Case law

Martin v. City of Albuquerque

147 F. Supp. 3d 1298 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 17, 2015

Martin maintains that Padilla is not entitled to qualified immunity because his “right to be free from excessive force was clearly established.” … Clearly Established Rights, in the Qualifíed Immunity Analysis.

Redmond v. Crowther

882 F.3d 927 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 9, 2018

“When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established … Clearly Established Even if we assume a constitutional violation occurred, moreover, the officers would still be entitled to qualified immunity because no case clearly establishes this right.

Hung Lam v. City of San Jose

869 F.3d 1077 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 5, 2017

Finding that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Lam, demonstrated a constitutional violation of clearly established law, the district court denied Officer West’s motion based on qualified immunity.2 Officer … demonstrated a violation of clearly established law.”

Hadley v. Gutierrez

526 F.3d 1324 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 6, 2008

Discussion 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 … We turn now to the second inquiry in the qualified immunity analysis, whether the right to be free from excessive force was clearly established. B.

Daniel Mook v. G. Hall

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 4, 2026

The district court assumed that qualified immunity is a defense to an FMLA interference claim but denied Hall’s motion because it concluded that federal regulations clearly established Mook’s right to an … In other words, the denial of qualified immunity turned on a pure issue of law: whether the FMLA regulations clearly established Mook’s right to a cure period in these circumstances.

Parada v. Anoka Cnty.

332 F. Supp. 3d 1229 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 30, 2018

Qualified Immunity "Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … established under the Fourth Amendment," arresting officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Collins v. School Board of Dade County, Florida

981 F.2d 1203 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 26, 1993

Most important for qualified immunity purposes, Loudermill established no bright line test for when a delay would become a constitutional violation. 4 See generally Barts v. … Joyner, 865 F.2d 1187, 1194 (11th Cir.1989) ("Harlow's 'clearly established' standard requires that a bright line be crossed" if defense of qualified immunity is to be overcome). 11 No controlling decision involved facts

B.F. & K.L.F. v. Division of Youth & Family Services

296 N.J. Super. 372 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 15, 1997

The DYFS employees and the deputy attorneys general contend they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law because they did not violate a clearly established federal statutory or constitutional right. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense would ordinarily fail. Id. at 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d at 411 . [ Id at 180-81, 536 A.2d 229 .]

Tripp v. Department of Defense

173 F. Supp. 2d 58 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 30, 2001

Defendants Did Not Violate Clearly Established Law Most executive officials are immune from suits alleging constitutional and statutory violations unless they violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights … In discussing the qualified immunity standard, those courts have focused primarily on the question of a violation of clearly established law. See, e.g., Anderson v.

Albright v. Rodriguez

51 F.3d 1531 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 7, 1995

Defendant contends he was entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because Plaintiff failed to show he violated clearly established law. … Further, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails to show that the law was clearly established. See, e.g., Pallottino v.

Sanzone v. Gray

884 F.3d 736 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 8, 2018

They all raised a qualified-immunity defense, arguing that they did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. … To decide whether Gray is entitled to qualified immunity, this court must ask: (1) whether his conduct violated Koster's Fourth Amendment right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged

Landstrom v. Illinois Department Of Children And Family Services

892 F.2d 670 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 9, 1990

Id. at 908 . 26 Contrary to plaintiffs' contentions, Darryl H. does not supply the particularized, clearly established right required for individual defendants to lose their qualified immunity. … immunity because the conduct alleged does not violate any clearly established first amendment rights.

Engesser v. Fox

District Court, D. South Dakota · Sep 23, 2019

Qualified immunity “Public officials are immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they have violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at … Second, the court must “ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id. A negative outcome to either inquiry results in qualified immunity for the official. Pearson v.

King v. City of Indianapolis

969 F. Supp. 2d 1085 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 29, 2013

Qualified Immunity “Governmental actors performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … King’s right was not clearly established and Defendant Officers are granted qualified immunity on this claim. 2. Fourth Amendment Defendants contend that the seizure of Mr.

Ajay Gaalla v. Citizens Medical Center, Et

460 F. App'x 469 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 16, 2012

established, it denied the Defendants qualified immunity on those claims.4 The district court also denied official immunity to Dr. … STANDARD OF REVIEW “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

Thompson v. Upshur County TX

245 F.3d 447 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 30, 2001

To ensure that qualified immunity serves its intended purpose, it is of paramount import, during step two, to define “clearly established law” at the proper level of generality. Anderson v. … Thus, the issue as to sheriff Cross’s claim of qualified immunity is whether his policies were objectively reasonable in light of then clearly established law.

Wares v. VanBebber

231 F. Supp. 2d 1120 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 8, 2002

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … In examining the issue of qualified immunity, defendants argued that the proper inquiry was whether plaintiffs right to special feeding accommodations for Ramadan was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

Whiting v. Kirk

768 F. Supp. 26 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Jun 21, 1991

The prevailing standard for qualified immunity is that “[government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The first step, then, in deciding the qualified immunity issue is to establish the right that was violated.

Jacqueline Washington v. L. Newsom R. Phillips J. Thomas the City of Southfield and the Southfield Police Department

977 F.2d 991 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 21, 1992

When a claim to qualified immunity is raised within the context of a motion for summary judgment, the non-movant must allege facts sufficient to indicate that the act in question violated clearly established law at the time … Thus, the plaintiff must effectively pass two hurdles when facing a defendant on summary judgment who claims qualified immunity. First, the allegations must “state a claim of violation of clearly established law.”

Howard v. City Of Houston

District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 18, 2022

Wade, 776 F.3d 368, 388 (5th Cir. 2015) (“It is well established that ‘municipalities have no immunity from damages liability flowing from their constitutional violations.’” (quoting Owen v. … Serrano and Vieira overstate the scope of any potential qualified immunity. See Pelletier, 516 U.S. at 312. Serrano was denied qualified immunity for allegedly conducting an unreasonable strip search.