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.

Cody Jones v. City of Elyria, Ohio

947 F.3d 905 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 17, 2020

Standard Of Review For Qualified Immunity. Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil liability for official acts that do not violate clearly established constitutional rights. Walker v. … As this collection of rights is clearly established, the two officers are not entitled to qualified immunity for the wrongful-arrest claim. b. Mitchell.

Brodie v. Worthington

841 F. Supp. 2d 91 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 24, 2012

’s clearly established constitutional rights. … Qualified immunity “protects government officials in civil litigation arising from their official conduct ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

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.”

Dixon v. City of Somersworth, et al.

2015 DNH 190 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Oct 5, 2015

Moreover, it is well established that qualified immunity, when properly invoked, “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” Penn v. … to qualified immunity.

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.

Quinones v. Howard

948 F. Supp. 251 · District Court, W.D. New York · Dec 11, 1996

It is well-established that issues involving the defense of qualified immunity should ordinarily be decided “at the earliest possible stage in litigation.” Anderson v. … Even when such rights are clearly established, qualified immunity also protects a government official if it is objectively reasonable for [the official] to believe that his acts did not violate those rights.” Russell v.

West Virginia of Corrections v. Tracy Jividen

West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 10, 2015

The WVDOC argues that the circuit court’s reason for denying summary judgment on the defense of qualified immunity is clearly erroneous and is flawed in several major respects. … “[T]he doctrine of qualified or official immunity bars a claim of mere negligence against a State agency . . . and WVDOC’s argument that qualified immunity shields the WVDOC from the Plaintiff’s claim should

In Re Scott County Master Docket

618 F. Supp. 1534 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Oct 2, 1985

plaintiffs have asserted violations of clearly established rights. … Yet a defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity can defeat a section 1983 action prior to discovery only if the plaintiff has not alleged that the defendant violated clearly established rights.

Jones v. City of Dothan, Alabama

121 F.3d 1456 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 17, 1997

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil litigation and liability where "their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights … With regard to the excessive force claim, the magistrate judge concluded that Estress and Wright were not entitled to qualified immunity since "on February 11, 1994, the law was clearly established that use of excessive

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.

Thibodeaux v. City of Port Arthur

783 F. Supp. 299 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Jan 24, 1992

insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, Harlow v. … The court is to determine immunity from suit based on the pleadings applying an “objective legal reasonableness” test, assessing the action in the light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it occurred

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.

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.

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.

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

Leibson v. Ohio Department of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities

84 Ohio App. 3d 751 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1992

Qualified immunity shields government officials under the objective standard which tests whether their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

Jordan Venema v. Fred West

133 F.4th 625 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 3, 2025

After concluding that the Complaint sufficiently alleged that DeAngelo violated Venema’s constitutional rights, the district court determined that DeAngelo was not entitled to qualified immunity, because clearly established … Violation of a Clearly Established Right Having concluded that the Estate sufficiently pleaded that DeAngelo violated Venema’s constitutional rights, we turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis

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.