Case law

Elkins v. McKenzie

865 So. 2d 1065 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Oct 30, 2003

The first step in the qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established federal constitutional (or federal statutory) right. Hare v. … To ensure that qualified immunity serves its intended purpose, it is of paramount import, during step two, to define "clearly established law" at the proper level of generality. Anderson v.

McKinney v. City of Tukwila

13 P.3d 631 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 9, 2000

clearly established at the time it was taken." … In light of the above case law, we find that the impropriety of the officers' actions here is not clearly established. We thus find that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under section 1983. C.

Hernandez v. Skinner

383 F. Supp. 3d 1077 · District Court, D. Montana · May 29, 2019

Qualified immunity shields public officials from suit unless the plaintiff can show (1) a violation of a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation. … "Qualified immunity is no immunity at all 'if clearly established' law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures." City & Cty. Of S.F. v.

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

Cosme-Rosado v. Serrano-Rodriguez

196 F. Supp. 2d 117 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 22, 2002

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Assuming, arguendo, that Serrano’s actions are not covered by absolute immunity, he would still enjoy qualified immunity from personal liability for money damages. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages for performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Gomes v. Wood

451 F.3d 1122 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 27, 2006

Annes did not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable official would have known, she and the other defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. I. BACKGROUND A. … “[W ]here the right is clearly established, a defendant should only rarely be able to succeed with a qualified immunity defense.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 2.

Flick v. Larue

608 F. Supp. 1281 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · May 20, 1985

established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would be aware, that official can defeat a constitutional tort claim by interposing the qualified immunity defense. … unless the constitutional right he was alleged to have violated was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.”

Valdez v. Roybal

186 F. Supp. 3d 1197 · District Court, D. New Mexico · May 12, 2016

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis. … The Law Was Not Clearly Established and Roybal and Placencio are Entitled to Qualified Immunity.

Caron Nazario v. Joe Gutierrez

103 F.4th 213 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 31, 2024

On the second prong of qualified immunity, i.e., the clearly established issue, we agree with the district court that Crocker is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct did not violate a clearly … The court, however, ruled that the Policemen were entitled to qualified immunity under its second prong, that is, the clearly established requirement.

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.

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

Williams v. City of Yazoo

41 F.4th 416 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 15, 2022

III Qualified immunity protects officials from civil liability for conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Ct. 9, 11 (2021), but we have seen cases like this before. 6 The district court denied the defendants qualified immunity but did not address whether the law was clearly established.

The Estate of Jeremy Marr v. City of Glasgow

District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Jan 31, 2025

The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry: (1) whether a constitutional right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was clearly established, though the steps need not be taken in that order. … Clearly Established The second prong of qualified immunity analysis examines whether the right as clearly established. See Getz, 833 F.3d at 652 (citing Pearson v.

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

Morton H. Halperin v. Henry A. Kissinger

807 F.2d 180 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 5, 1986

The District Court granted summary judgment to . defendants on qualified immunity grounds, reasoning that the wiretap did not violate clearly established law since it had a rational nexus to national security. … We must determine whether the claims based on these requirements are subject to the qualified immunity defense. As to the warrant requirement, the answer is plain, since it was not yet clearly established.

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.

People Ex Rel. Feuer v. Progressive Horizon, Inc.

248 Cal. App. 4th 533 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 2016

Proposition D bans medical marijuana businesses, but grants certain qualifying businesses a limited immunity from enforcement of the ordinance. … As set forth in the Declarations attached to these moving papers, Progressive has resolved the LiveScan issue and now fully qualifies for limited immunity.

Cruz v. Cervantez

96 F.4th 806 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 20, 2024

As for the second prong, “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 … Jury Instructions add an “objective unreasonableness” element into the clearly-established-law prong of the qualified immunity analysis, they do not accurately reflect the law.