Case law

Nunez Gonzalez v. Vazquez Garced

389 F. Supp. 2d 214 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 8, 2005

Qualified Immunity Defendants further argue that the doctrine of qualified immunity bars all monetary claims against them. … 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

Ford v. Baltimore City Sheriff's Office

149 Md. App. 107 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 27, 2002

The standards for establishing a prima facie case of negligence have been clearly established. The Court of Appeals stated in Bobo v. … Clearly, the Court would not have had to instruct the circuit court to make a qualified immunity determination absent a malice finding if no immunity existed for State constitutional torts. See Lee v.

Octavio Delgado v. Police Chief Arthur Jones and Deputy Chief Monica Ray

282 F.3d 511 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 2, 2002

Moreover, in the context of a qualified immunity defense, “The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of a clearly established constitutional right.” Donovan, 17 F.3d at 951 -52 (citing Rakovich v. … After establishing that the plaintiff has adequately alleged a violation of a constitutional right, the second level of inquiry in a qualified immunity analysis involves whether the law was “clearly established” at the time

Wells v. Bonner

45 F.3d 90 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 17, 1995

, they alternatively contend that they are entitled to claim qualified immunity because Wells has failed to show that they violated any clearly established constitutional right. … In this immunity appeal, we must next determine whether Wells's proffered evidence demonstrates the basis for the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Siegert, 500 U.S.

Garcia v. Montgomery County

145 F. Supp. 3d 492 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 5, 2015

Clearly Established Right Although the Court finds a constitutional right to video record public" police activities, Officers Baxter and Malouf would still be entitled to qualified immunity if that right was not clearly established … Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 85 (1st Cir.2011)), it is the law of the case that such a right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Hicks v. P.O. Jenkins 8917

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 30, 2024

[Dkt. 63 at 4-7.]4 Second, his actions did not violate a clearly established right, so he is entitled to qualified immunity. [Id. at 8-10.] … This is insufficient to defeat qualified immunity. Kisela v.

Crump v. Passaic County

147 F. Supp. 3d 249 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 2, 2015

(2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Courts have been instructed “not to define clearly established law at 'a high level of generality.” Id. There is no clearly established law that the alleged conduct here violated the Fourth Amendment.

Brandon Peterson v. Cmdr. Roger Heinen

89 F.4th 628 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 26, 2023

To decide whether the district court should have granted qualified immunity, we ask if the facts “demonstrate the deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right” and if “the right was clearly established at the time of … Because the facts, even when viewed in the light most favorable to Peterson, do not support the violation of a clearly established right, we reverse.

Sandoval v. County of Sonoma

72 F. Supp. 3d 997 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 29, 2014

“[C]ourts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law....” Reichle v. Howards, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 2088, 2093 , 182 L.Ed.2d 985 (2012). … A Court may grant “qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law....” Reichle v.

Maraziti v. First Interstate Bank

953 F.2d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 3, 1992

II A federal official’s assertion of qualified immunity based upon the plaintiff’s failure to state a “violation of clearly established law” is a question of law. Mitchell v. … It is true that “[s]pecific binding precedent is not required to show that a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.” Brady v.

Gordon v. District of Columbia

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 15, 2024

App. 1998)—are not binding, nor do they muddle the clearly established principles set forth above so as to support the District’s claim of qualified immunity. … proving that the defendant “violated clearly established rights” and is not entitled to qualified immunity.

McCue v. City of Bangor Maine

838 F.3d 55 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 26, 2016

Because qualified immunity is "an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability," id. … Here, we focus on the "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Lojuk v. Johnson

770 F.2d 619 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 8, 1985

and qualified immunity. … Plaintiff argued in the alternative that even if defendants had not violated clearly established constitutional rights, they should be denied qualified immunity because they had violated a state administrative regulation.

Zimmerman v. Corbett

195 F. Supp. 3d 695 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2016

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated- a clearly established constitutional right. Pearson v. … Whether the right at issue is clearly established Having determined that Plaintiff alleged a constitutional violation, the Court turns the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Sample v. Bailey

337 F. Supp. 2d 1012 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 24, 2004

The qualified immunity doctrine provides “that governmental officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … A “Clearly Established” Right? To overcome the bar of quali-fied immunity, a plaintiff must show that a right was clearly established in the law at the time the alleged violation occurred.

Tschida v. Motl

250 F. Supp. 3d 709 · District Court, D. Montana · Apr 18, 2017

The Court may begin the qualified immunity analysis by considering first “whether1 theré is a-violation of-clearly established law . without determining whether a constitutional violation occurred.” … The Court also affirmed the magistrate judge’s ruling that the right was clearly established, and, therefore, qualified immunity was not available to the officials. Id.

Gallimore ex rel. W.S.G. v. Henrico County School Board

38 F. Supp. 3d 721 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Aug 5, 2014

“A school official searching a student is ‘entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.’ ” Id. at 377 , 129 S.Ct. 2633 (quoting Pearson v. … “[W]here no reasonable officer could believe he was acting in accordance with [a clearly established constitutional right], qualified immunity will not attach.” Pinder v. Johnson, 54 F.3d 1169, 1173 (4th Cir.1995).

Gall v. City of Vidor, Tex.

903 F. Supp. 1062 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Oct 2, 1995

Qualified immunity allows public officials performing discretionary functions to be generally shielded from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established rights of which a reasonable … Luce’s actions, this court finds that a clearly established exception to the general rule against warrantless searches and seizures exists and Mr. Luce is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Killian v. Grizzle

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 15, 2025

The doctrine of 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 … Grizzle] violated th[is] clearly established right[].” Id. Sgt.

Sonnino v. University of Kansas Hospital Authority

221 F.R.D. 661 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 22, 2004

Under these circumstances, the Court cannot conclude that its decision to overrule the Individual Hospital Defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity was clearly erroneous or that it resulted in manifest injustice to any … Conclusion With the exception of the Court’s ruling on whether the Hospital Defendants’ qualified immunity objections were substantially justified, the Hospital Defendants fail to show how the Court’s rulings were clearly