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

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

Shechter v. Comptroller of New York

79 F.3d 265 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 21, 1996

It is not enough that defendants-appellants were “government officials” to establish qualified immunity. … Accordingly, defendants-appellants’ pleading is insufficient to establish their qualified immunity defense.

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

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Biggs ex rel. Biggs v. Legrand

706 F. App'x 820 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 30, 2017

A plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity must show that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct. … Whether a right was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity is a question of law. Good v. Curtis, 601 F.3d 393, 400-01 (5th Cir. 2010).

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

Ronald Mitchell v. Justin Schlabach

864 F.3d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 3, 2017

Second, was the right, clearly established at the time of the violation?” Id. Government officials are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity unless the answer to both questions is yes. See id. *421 A. … at the time he acted. 3 We hold that they were not, The Supreme Court very recently reminded the lower courts that an officer’s actions are against “clearly established” law for purposes of qualified immunity only when “

Khorrami v. Rolince

539 F.3d 782 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 27, 2008

Qualified immunity is the right to be free at the earliest point at which the court can be sure that the government official's conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that any reasonable … In an interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity, the first question is "whether or not certain given facts showed a violation of `clearly established law.'"