Case 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.

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.'"

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 “

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Falkner v. Houston

974 F. Supp. 757 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Mar 6, 1997

The only issue to be decided by the court “is purely a legal one: whether the facts alleged (by the plaintiff, or, in some cases, the defendant) support a claim of violation of clearly established law.” … For the right to be clearly established, “[t]he 'contours' of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right ...

Montville v. Lewis

87 F.3d 900 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 1, 1996

Cabrera, 58 F.3d 290, 292 (7th Cir.1995), and, finding that the defendants’ conduct did not violate “clearly established law” and thus was shielded by qualified immunity, we reverse. … In light of our conclusion that qualified immunity was proper as to the September search, it necessarily follows that using information gained during that inspection was reasonable and did not violate clearly established

Ken Mouille, Laurie Rollins v. City of Live Oak

918 F.2d 548 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 8, 1991

Whether a defendant asserting qualified immunity may be personally liable turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the defendant’s actions assessed in light of clearly established law. … Unit A Jan. 1981) were clearly established law in this circuit.

CYBER ZONE E-CAFE, INC. v. King

782 F. Supp. 2d 1331 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 22, 2011

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Because the law was not clearly established in April 2010 that the Plaintiffs’ arrest and seizure was unlawful, Defendant King is entitled to qualified immunity, and all claims against him in his individual capacity shall

Azucena Zamorano Aleman v. City of Charlotte

80 F.4th 264 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 16, 2023

As the district court recognized, the qualified immunity analysis consists of two prongs: (1) whether a statutory or constitutional violation occurred, and (2) whether the right was clearly established at … Nevertheless, “[a] right need not be recognized by a court in a specific factual context before such right may be considered ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity.” See Wilson v.

Garcia-Rubiera v. Flores-Galarza

516 F. Supp. 2d 180 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 30, 2007

Whether Constitutional Right was Clearly Established The second stage in the qualified immunity requires the court to ask whether the law was clearly established at the time of the constitutional violation. … Because the law was not clearly established at the time the Secretary allegedly deprived Plaintiffs of their rights guaranteed by the Takings Clause, he is entitled to qualified immunity on all of their takings claims.

Gene Flinn v. Elaine Gordon, Dexter Lehtinen

775 F.2d 1551 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 15, 1985

Once this is established, the official is immune from liability unless the plaintiff can “prove that the defendant’s actions violated clearly established constitutional law.” Id. … Since Flinn cannot show the loss of any federal right, much less the loss of a “clearly established” right, he has failed to overcome Gordon’s qualified immunity.