Case law

Marcus Underwood v. City of Bessemer

11 F.4th 1317 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 2, 2021

While we find that Underwood’s facts make out a constitutional violation, the Officers are still entitled to qualified immunity if the violation was not clearly established. Morton, 707 F.3d at 1282. B. … Was the Right Clearly Established?

Elizabeth Roque-Rodriguez v. Hon. Jose Lema Moya

926 F.2d 103 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 27, 1991

This is clearly an error of law, since for purposes of the doctrine of qualified immunity, th[e] court had to determine whether on [sic] 1985, plaintiff had a clearly established right under the First Amendment to be promoted … and that the failure to promote her violated this clearly established right.

Howards v. McLaughlin

634 F.3d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 14, 2011

“Such immunity is qualified in that it does not obtain when otherwise immune officials violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … In qualified immunity cases, we may look to other courts when there is no Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit precedent on point to determine if a right is "clearly established.” See, e.g., York v.

Sarah Watkins v. City of St. Louis, Missouri

102 F.4th 947 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 29, 2024

“Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct did not ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … To overcome qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage, a plaintiff “must plead facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the

Angus v. Mayorkas

District Court, W.D. Texas · Apr 29, 2022

To the extent Plaintiff attempts to argue that she was more qualified than J.C., the evidence is insufficient to establish pretext because it does not show that Plaintiff clearly was more qualified than J.C. … See Price, 283 F.3d at 723 (stating that to establish pretext, the losing candidate’s qualifications must “leap from the record and cry out to all who would listen that [s]he was vastly—or even clearly—more qualified for

Visser v. Magnarelli

542 F. Supp. 1331 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 9, 1982

Fitzgerald, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2739 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) ("If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law … Treen, 671 F.2d 892, 899-900 (5th Cir. 1982) (violation of clearly established state law vitiates objective prong of good faith immunity defense).

Damron v. North Dakota Commissioner of Corrections

299 F. Supp. 2d 970 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Jan 26, 2004

The Eighth Circuit has instructed: Qualified immunity shields government actors from liability in civil lawsuits when “them conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … As our cases further establish, however, the question of qualified immunity requires more than a determination that a particular right is “clearly established” in the abstract.

Stone v. Peacock

968 F.2d 1163 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1992

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense which protects public officials acting within the scope of their discretionary authority and under clearly established law from insubstantial lawsuits. Butz v. … The jury was instructed to determine if defendants violated clearly established law.

Anaya Serbia v. Lausell

646 F. Supp. 1236 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 11, 1986

The Supreme Court in Davis stated that: Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” … Because the “clearly established” test has not been met the defendants met the requirements of qualified immunity and are therefore entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims for money damages.

Mitchell v. Village Of Matteson

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 5, 2020

Qualified Immunity Dumais and Reyes argue that, even if Mitchell has stated a claim, they are entitled to qualified immunity on both § 1983 claims. … Qualified immunity applies unless the plaintiff shows that the officer violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the violation. Id. at 546.

Delbert Johnson v. City of Fort Worth

916 F.3d 410 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 14, 2019

established” qualified immunity standard. … It does not require that causation be clearly established. Indeed, Halstead cites no case requiring a heightened showing of causation in qualified immunity cases.

Miguel Reynaga Hernandez v. Derrek Skinner

969 F.3d 930 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 10, 2020

Holder, 673 F.3d 1029, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011)), the court held that Reynaga’s Fourth Amendment rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged offense, and denied both Hernandez and Skinner qualified immunity, id … The second prong in the qualified-immunity analysis is whether the constitutional right in question was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (1994).

J.H. ex rel. J.P. v. Nation

61 F. Supp. 3d 1176 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jan 14, 2015

established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualiñed Immunity Analysis.

Goolsby v. Dist. of Columbia

317 F. Supp. 3d 582 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 13, 2018

The Court will once more exercise its discretion to begin with the second prong of the qualified immunity test: whether any constitutional violation here was clearly established. … False Arrest Beginning with the false arrest claims, the Court will again start with the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether any violation by the Dispatchers was clearly established.

Coates v. Powell

650 F. Supp. 2d 932 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Jul 1, 2009

Qualified Immunity Generally “Qualified immunity shields governmental officials from personal liability if their actions, even if unlawful, were nevertheless objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law … Thus, “a state official is protected by qualified *938 immunity from a section 1983 claim unless [the] alleged conduct violated clearly established federal constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person in

Grenning v. Klemme

34 F. Supp. 3d 1144 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jul 22, 2014

Qualified Immunity “[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 … Harrington would not be entitled to qualified immunity as the right to be free from arbitrary mail searches was clearly established in 2010. (ECF No. 56 at 17-18).

Alex LL. v. Department of Social Services

60 A.D.3d 199 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 22, 2009

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for damages when performing discretionary duties “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … “The qualified immunity standard gives ample room for mistaken judgments by protecting all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.

Baker v. Clearwater County

District Court, D. Idaho · Jan 3, 2022

An officer sued under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity from suit, unless the officer’s conduct 1) violated a constitutional right, and 2) that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the … Thus, both of the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the Section 1983 claims brought against them individually.

Whitten v. Wooten

295 Ga. App. 281 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Dec 1, 2008

Qualified immunity gives government officials performing discretionary functions complete protection from individual claims brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 , if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory … She claims the force was excessive and violated clearly established constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Lucas v. Parish of Jefferson

999 F. Supp. 839 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Mar 31, 1998

Qualified immunity protects an official from liability unless the official violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Reynolds violated the Lucases clearly established rights in moving to revoke their probation.