Case 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

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.”

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.”

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

In Re: Montgomery County

215 F.3d 367 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 9, 2000

clearly established right which the Appellants violated and therefore denied them the protection of qualified immunity." … Holding as we do that Wright has alleged the violation of a clearly established right, we must also hold that the Appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings. IV.

Charlie Wade v. Thomas Hegner

804 F.2d 67 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 20, 1986

One of the defendants, Thomas Hegner, 1 also argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Defendant claims that the trial court erred three ways when it rejected his defense of qualified immunity.

Lowden v. County of Clare

709 F. Supp. 2d 540 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 25, 2010

Qualified immunity provides “that government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … The court determined that the defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity because “a reasonable officer in [the defendant’s] position would have known that Carey had a clearly established Fourth Amendment right not to

Venegas v. County of Los Angeles

11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 692 · California Supreme Court · Apr 5, 2004

A rule of qualified immunity shields a public officer from an action for damages under section 1983 unless the officer has violated a “clearly established” constitutional right. (Saucier, supra, 533 U.S. at p. 201.) … The high court explained that “[i]f the law did not put the officer on notice that his- conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” (Ibid.)

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Feb 25, 2002

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an individual is immune from trial if the actions complained of were taken in good faith in the performance of one's duties, and the acts do not violate any clearly established constitutional … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Id. ; Robinson v.

Sain v. Wood

512 F.3d 886 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 9, 2008

Wood moved for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. The district court denied his summary judgment motion, and Dr. Wood appeals the denial of qualified immunity. … Wood had disqualified himself from immunity by violating a clearly established constitutional right. Because the issue of Dr.

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.

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."

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?

Smith v. Schwarzenegger

137 F. Supp. 3d 1233 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 7, 2015

Qualified Immunity. … Accordingly, the Court skips the first step of the Saucier qualified immunity analysis. b. Defendants Did Not Violate Clearly Established Law.

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

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.

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).

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.

Henderson v. Baird

29 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 14, 1994

They are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … The magistrate judge went on to deny qualified immunity on the substantive due process claim because the law was clearly established "that substantive due process required that at least some evidence was needed to support

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.