Case law

Cole v. Hunter

68 F. Supp. 3d 628 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 22, 2014

Officers Hunter and Cassidy’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based Upon Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §,1983 “from liability for civil damages … Factual Showing Having affirmed that Plaintiffs alleged a violation of a clearly established right, the Court turns now to the remaining inquiry in the qualified immunity anal *644 ysis.

Richard Rockwell v. City of Garland, Texas

664 F.3d 985 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 15, 2011

The burden is on the Rockwells to rebut the officers’ qualified-immunity defense “by establishing a genuine fact issue as to whether the [officers’] allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.” Id. … Smith, 117 F.3d 866, 871 (5th Cir.1997) ("[Wjhere the complained of conduct is a law enforcement warrantless search of a residence, qualified immunity turns not only on whether it was then clearly established that such a

Roger Lee v. William Driscoll

871 F.3d 581 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 7, 2017

“We review de novo the district court’s denial of qualified immunity.” Id. at 813 . … a constitutional right’; and (2) whether the asserted constitutional right is clearly established.”

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

Summerville v. City of Forest Park

195 Ohio App. 3d 13 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 2011

Qualified Immunity {¶17} Qualified immunity shields a government official from civil liability unless (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that right was “clearly established” at … Moreover, she failed to demonstrate that they were not entitled to qualified immunity. {¶34} Therefore, we hold that Pape and Hall are entitled to qualified immunity on Summerville’s Section 1983 claims against them

Sandoval v. County of Sonoma

72 F. Supp. 3d 997 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 29, 2014

“[C]ourts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law....” Reichle v. Howards, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 2088, 2093 , 182 L.Ed.2d 985 (2012). … A Court may grant “qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law....” Reichle v.

Eunice Winzer v. Kaufman County

916 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 18, 2019

alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right;’ and second, ‘whether the right was clearly established.’” … The majority has correctly concluded that Officer Hinds is entitled to qualified immunity due to the lack of clearly established law.

Green v. Tudor

685 F. Supp. 2d 678 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jan 29, 2010

The second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is whether the right was “clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … Williams, 320 Fed.Appx. 678, 679 (9th Cir.2009) (defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on prisoner’s RLUIPA and Free Exercise Clause Claims because he did not have a clearly established right to halal meals); see

Gallimore ex rel. W.S.G. v. Henrico County School Board

38 F. Supp. 3d 721 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Aug 5, 2014

“A school official searching a student is ‘entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.’ ” Id. at 377 , 129 S.Ct. 2633 (quoting Pearson v. … “[W]here no reasonable officer could believe he was acting in accordance with [a clearly established constitutional right], qualified immunity will not attach.” Pinder v. Johnson, 54 F.3d 1169, 1173 (4th Cir.1995).

John Kelly, Jr. v. Steven Curtis Julie M. Gibson J.R. Moore Chatham County, Ga

21 F.3d 1544 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 8, 1994

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability under federal law unless their conduct violates a “clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional right[ … By distinguishing these two out-of-circuit decisions that Kelly has cited, we do not mean to imply that the law can be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes by non-binding precedent. See Hansen v.

John W. Burgess Linda M. Burgess, Husband and Wife v. Pierce County, a Municipal Corporation Joseph Stortini Jane "Doe" Stortini, Husband and Wife

918 F.2d 104 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 2, 1990

The scope of our review is detailed in Mitchell : Unless 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 … “[S]tate and local officials are entitled to qualified immunity if ‘their conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Manhattan Beach

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.

Fox v. Government of the District of Columbia

794 F.3d 25 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 17, 2015

Officer Boyd moved for judgment on the pleadings for Count 1, arguing that he is protected by qualified immunity. The district court explained, to overcome Officer Boyd’s claim to qualified immunity, Mrs. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects police officers “from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they have violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct

AHE Realty Assoc., LLC v. Miami-Dade Cnty.

320 F. Supp. 3d 1322 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 29, 2018

Qualified Immunity Naranjo also states he is entitled to qualified immunity. … A defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal "unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law." Cottone v. Jenne , 326 F.3d 1352 , 1357 (11th Cir. 2003).

Zaragoza v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs

Supreme Court of Kansas · Jun 27, 2025

Second, she claims that even if the library itself is a qualifying property, the immunity exception does not apply to the parking lot because granting immunity to areas "integral" to the function of a qualifying property … For example, the public library's StoryWalk would qualify for recreational use immunity if it was hosted outdoors but would not qualify for immunity if it was hosted indoors.

Barnett v. Karpinos

119 N.C. App. 719 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 15, 1995

In reviewing this argument, we apply the following standard: “The test of qualified immunity for police officers sued under [section 1983] is whether [the officers’ conduct violated] clearly established statutory or constitutional … In ruling on the defense of qualified immunity we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation; and (3)

Marvin v. City of Taylor

509 F.3d 234 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 4, 2007

In other words, qualified immunity need only be granted if there is a violation of a constitutional right, but that right was not clearly established at the time the official violated it. … If, and only if, the force used was objectively unreasonable should the Court consider qualified immunity and address the second question: whether the right violated was clearly established. B.

Gressley v. Deutsch

890 F. Supp. 1474 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Oct 5, 1994

and law to establish that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity and do more than identify, in the abstract, a clearly established right.

LaChance v. Town of Charlton

990 F.3d 14 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 3, 2021

Of course, prior cases with materially similar facts are not necessary to clearly establish conduct's illegality; a "general constitutional rule" located in prior authority can suffice to defeat qualified immunity even … (alteration in district court precedent when determining if constitutional rights are clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.").

Fowler v. Nicholas

522 F. Supp. 655 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 1981

Thus, the court in Woods has included in the defense of qualified immunity the duty to know clearly settled rights. … Therefore, the qualified-immunity defense is irrelevant to this claim.