Case law

López-Ramos v. Municipality of Cataño

556 F. Supp. 2d 59 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 21, 2008

The sec ond inquiry is whether the law was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Savard, 338 F.3d at 27 . … Rather, it makes the blanket and general assertion that its officers are entitled to immunity because their conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights. 1.

Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach

341 F.3d 939 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 28, 2003

He posits a novel twist to the “clearly established” inquiry, contending that because it is not clearly established that damages may be obtained under § 1983 for an unlawful traffic stop, qualified immunity should apply. … Rather, in determining whether qualified immunity is available, those cases merely inquire whether the right at issue was clearly established in law.

Burt v. Carlson

752 F. Supp. 346 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 12, 1990

There are two kinds of immunity. One is absolute immunity, and the other is qualified or good-faith immunity. … Under qualified immunity, government officials are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Lawrenz v. James

852 F. Supp. 986 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 6, 1994

Thus, if the applicable law was not clearly established, or if the law was clearly established and Defendant James did not violate that law in terminating Plaintiff, he is entitled to qualified immunity. … CONCLUSION Defendant James is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law in terminating Plaintiff.

Brown & Gay Engineering, Inc. v. Zuleima Olivares, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Pedro Olivares, Jr., & Pedro Olivares

58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 678 · Texas Supreme Court · Apr 24, 2015

Brown & Gay’s reliance on Filar-sky's qualified-immunity analysis is misplaced. … The federal 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 reasonable

Marwan Mahajni v. Vu Do

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 13, 2026

On the immunity issues, it denied qualified immunity to Deputy Do, ruling that United States ex rel. Tobe was an anal- ogous case and clearly established that Deputy Do’s conduct violated Mr. … Deputy Woida is entitled to qualified immunity for a sec- ond reason—there’s no clearly established law that says that a bailiff who fails to stop someone else from making an im- proper statement to a juror violates a defendant

William C. Powell v. Thomas J. Mikulecky, George Oates, Ruth Stephens and Wendall Gilliam

891 F.2d 1454 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 15, 1989

The test for qualified immunity is whether defendants violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Once a defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity as a defense to an action, “[t]he plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was clearly established.”

Reed v. Taylor

923 F.3d 411 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 2, 2019

The district court granted summary judgment to the officials based on qualified immunity, holding that the threat of criminal prosecution wasn't "other legal process" under clearly established law. Reed appealed. … "The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'

Lojuk v. Johnson

770 F.2d 619 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 8, 1985

and qualified immunity. … Plaintiff argued in the alternative that even if defendants had not violated clearly established constitutional rights, they should be denied qualified immunity because they had violated a state administrative regulation.

Tommy D. Hopkins v. John L. Saunders, Kyle Vickers, Charles Ausfahl, Roy Temple, Beth M. Wheeler

93 F.3d 522 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 23, 1996

Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are generally immune from suit in performing discretionary duties if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The district court determined, however, that the right to such a hearing was clearly established by section 105.055 and thus denied the officials qualified immunity. We disagree.

Ralston v. Cannon

884 F.3d 1060 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 13, 2018

The district court denied Cannon’s request for qualified immunity. … Procedural Background Cannon filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming he was entitled to qualified immunity. 2 He asserted that to establish a violation of the Free Exercise Clause, Ralston “must show that his

Ross v. Early

899 F. Supp. 2d 415 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 25, 2012

Thus, if the right was not clearly established, for example, Officer Early would be entitled to qualified immunity without an assessment of the first prong. … Determination of a violation of constitutional rights is no longer a predicate for assessing qualified immunity; a court may first address whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation

Estate of Bleck ex rel. Churchill v. Martinez

383 P.3d 39 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2014

’s motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. … On appeal, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the Fourth Amendment claim against Officer Martinez, concluding that he could not be found to have violated clearly established Fourth

Soscia Holdings, LLC v. P State of Rhode Island, et al.

2023 DNH 074 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jun 15, 2023

Qualified immunity applies where: (1) a federal right was violated, and (2) “the 21 unlawfulness of the conduct was clearly established at the time.” … Courts may begin the qualified immunity analysis by considering the clearly established prong. Id.

Baptiste v. Griffin

District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 31, 2019

Therefore, a qualified immunity analysis is not necessary. … violate any clearly established right of Plaintiff.

Southern California Rapid Transit District v. Superior Court

30 Cal. App. 4th 713 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1994

They dismiss defendants’ argument that the court failed to rule on their qualified immunity defense. … However, the qualified immunity under federal law upon which the defendants rely here does not apply if their actions violated a clearly established *731 statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person should

Linda Sexton v. Thomas Cernuto

18 F.4th 177 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 8, 2021

Qualified immunity “shields government officials from ‘liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 2 The district … The qualified immunity analysis has two parts.

Farid v. Ellen

593 F.3d 233 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 28, 2010

For qualified immunity purposes, however, we must more precisely define the rights at issue, and only then determine whether they were “clearly established.” … For qualified immunity purposes, however, there is a separate question, which is whether the right violated by this conduct was clearly established.

McCue v. City of Bangor Maine

838 F.3d 55 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 26, 2016

Because qualified immunity is "an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability," id. … Here, we focus on the "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

District of Columbia v. Jackson

810 A.2d 388 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 14, 2002

that the officers acted beyond the reach of qualified immunity protection). … That "general proposition,” the.Supreme Court reiterated in Saucier, "is not enough” to resolve the immunity question; instead "the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been clearly established in a more