Case law

Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center - El Paso v. Gloria Bustillos

556 S.W.3d 394 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Jun 13, 2018

First, the federal court’s ruling was based on “qualified immunity” which evaluates whether there was a violation of a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established at the time. … (recognizing that the terms “official immunity” and “qualified immunity” are often used interchangeably, but that the doctrines are separate defenses; qualified immunity applies when federal law claims are raised while

Derrick Newman v. James Guedry

703 F.3d 757 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 21, 2012

and on the § 1983 claim on the basis of qualified immunity. … The officers maintain that their conduct was not objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time of the incident.

Bartell v. Lohiser

12 F. Supp. 2d 640 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 1, 1998

whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.” … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiffs ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims because plaintiff has failed to show that defendants violated a clearly established right of which they should have known. 4

Brown v. Dickey

117 F.4th 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 3, 2024

Qualified immunity, which shields an officer from civil liability unless the officer violates clearly established law of which a reasonable officer would have known, is an immunity from suit and damages. … Because qualified immunity is an immunity from suit, an officer's claim of qualified immunity "ought to be resolved as soon as possible in [the] litigation." Norton, 955 F.3d at 183.

Ronald Converse v. City of Kemah, Texas, et

961 F.3d 771 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 12, 2020

“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Mace v. City of Palestine, 333 F.3d 621, 623 (5th Cir. 2003). … Prong 2: Violation of Clearly Established Law The second part of the qualified immunity analysis requires us to determine “whether the [D]efendants’ conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established

Carrigan v. State of Del.

957 F. Supp. 1376 · District Court, D. Delaware · Feb 18, 1997

In Anderson, the Supreme Court elaborated on the “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity inquiry. … However, whether these broad constitutional principles are clearly established is not the appropriate inquiry under the qualified immunity standard.

Michael J. Daugherty & Labmd, Inc. v. Sheer

891 F.3d 386 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 1, 2018

“Qualified immunity depends upon the answers to two questions: (1) Did the officer’s conduct violate a constitutional or statutory right? If so, (2) was that right clearly established at the time of the violation?” … The proponent of a purported right has the “burden to show that the particular right in question . . . was clearly established” for qualified-immunity purposes. Dukore v. Dist. of Columbia, 799 F.3d 1137, 1145 (D.C.

Morse v. Fusto

804 F.3d 538 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 11, 2015

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects public officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability in a civil suit for damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … We conclude that the right in question was clearly established such that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Mark Nieters v. Brandon Holtan

83 F.4th 1099 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 11, 2023

; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time.” … As the court recognizes, even if a police officer violates a federal right, he is still entitled to qualified immunity unless the unlawfulness of his conduct was clearly established. District of Columbia v.

Tyron Brown v. Lee Lucas

753 F.3d 606 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 28, 2014

On this score, appellees are entitled to qualified immunity. Whatever rights appellants had to receive exculpatory evidence prior to entering their pleas was not clearly established. … in light of the clearly established constitutional rights.' ” Feathers v.

Davila v. City of New York

139 A.D.3d 890 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 18, 2016

Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the officers’ actions would be entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … “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” (Mullenix

Regina Barton v. Chad Ledbetter

908 F.3d 1119 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 14, 2018

or statutory right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” … Conclusion We affirm the denial of qualified immunity as to Martin. We reverse the denial of qualified immunity as to Wright.

Fazaga v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

885 F. Supp. 2d 978 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 14, 2012

The doctrine of qualified immunity was established to protect government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … The Agent Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that Plaintiffs were “aggrieved persons.”

Brendle v. City of Houston, Miss.

177 F. Supp. 2d 553 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jan 5, 2001

Qualified immunity shields state actors from civil liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Davis v. … in light of the clearly established law.

Valentin Rodriguez v. Municipality of Barceloneta

236 F. Supp. 2d 189 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 18, 2002

The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable person … Therefore, the question no longer is whether the issue of the time clocks was a clearly established statutory or constitutional right, but becomes whether Plaintiff has sufficiently asserted a violation of one (or more) clearly

Ronald Jordan, Robert MacKay and the Mbta Police Patrolman's Union v. Joseph C. Carter

428 F.3d 67 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 4, 2005

As noted above, the district court rejected appellant’s qualified immunity defense, which shields government actors from damages based on their conduct unless a reasonable official would have known, in light of clearly established … Clearly Established Right The second stage of the qualified immunity inquiry requires us to determine whether the right we have identified was “ ‘reasonably well settled at the time of the challenged conduct,’ ” Mihos, 358

Ginger Elder v. Cindy Gillespie

54 F.4th 1055 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 9, 2022

violations of their constitutional rights with respect to their continuing benefits claims and that those rights were clearly established.” … Government officials claiming a qualified immunity defense are protected “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Painter v. City of MT

823 S.E.2d 583 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 5, 2019

"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." … In the absence of such a clearly established right, the officer-defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from a 42 U.S.C. § 1985 conspiracy claim because they were employed by the same department. Id.

CLOANINGER EX REL. EST. OF CLOANINGER v. McDevitt

555 F.3d 324 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 9, 2009

If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate. … a claim of violation of clearly established law."

Coming Up, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco

857 F. Supp. 711 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 21, 1994

First, plaintiffs urge the Court *714 to only consider the defense of qualified immunity with reference to “clearly established law.” Harlow v. … Thus the availability of qualified immunity depends upon the “ ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action ... in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”