Case law

Maraziti v. First Interstate Bank Of California

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

II 5 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. … established for qualified immunity purposes."

McKay v. City of Hayward

949 F. Supp. 2d 971 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 11, 2013

In the absence of clearly established law, Officers Cox, Purnell, and Miller are entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim. … Parks, 383 F.3d 1058, 1071 (9th Cir.2004) (denying qualified immunity to officers who failed to intervene where law clearly established use of force was excessive).

Trevor Davis v. Christopher Allen

112 F.4th 487 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 14, 2024

The 3 Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the un- lawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time … Whether Deputy Allen Violated Clearly Established Law Depends on Disputed Facts The parties’ disputed facts are also inextricably bound up with the question of whether Deputy Allen violated clearly established

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

James v. Bryant, Jr. v. United States Treasury Department, Secret Service, and Jeff Jordan Brian v. Hunter

903 F.2d 717 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 18, 1990

Racansky, 887 F.2d 183 (9th Cir.1989) (reversing district court’s denial of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, finding that alleged conduct did not violate clearly established law), Merriman v. … 5 We conclude that the law was not clearly established.

Moss v. U.S. Secret Service

572 F.3d 962 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 16, 2009

The R & R concluded that, with respect to the individual Agents, Plaintiffs had pleaded a violation of clearly established First Amendment law. … But even assuming that orders deferring a ruling on qualified immunity are immediately appealable in some circumstances, those circumstances are clearly-not present here.

Phillips v. Thomas

555 So. 2d 81 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jul 21, 1989

Thus, we move to the question of whether the appellees are entitled to qualified or substantive immunity. III. Substantive Immunity. … This evidence clearly establishes the fact that Thomas's alleged negligence arose out of the performance of a ministerial act, and, therefore, that Thomas is not entitled to qualified immunity from suit.

Michaels v. New Jersey

50 F. Supp. 2d 353 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 26, 1999

Once a defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, it is the plaintiffs burden to delineate the constitutional right that was violated and show that it was clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue. … Parenthetically, in a qualified immunity analysis, defining the constitutional right at issue is critical in assessing whether or not that right was clearly established.

Martinez v. Harper

14 Brief Times Rptr. 1486 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Nov 8, 1990

In sum, once a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff assumes the burden of showing that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would … If the plaintiff fails to meet the burden of showing how the defendant violated a clearly established right, the motion for summary judgment must be granted.

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).

Mangual v. Toledo

536 F. Supp. 2d 127 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 15, 2008

Qualiñed Immunity Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Public officials are therefore entitled to qualified immunity unless the facts establish that their conduct violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time of the violation such that a reasonable

Morales v. City of North Las Vegas

272 F. Supp. 3d 1216 · District Court, D. Nevada · Jul 26, 2017

Qualified immunity protects law enforcement officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … This argument, without more, would likely fail the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry because of the "longstanding principle that clearly established law should not be defined at a high level of generality ...

Upton v. Thompson

930 F.2d 1209 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 22, 1991

The district court concluded such rights were clearly established and denied the Sheriff’s motion for summary judgment. Sheriff Thompson appeals the denial of qualified immunity. II. … We conclude therefore that since the law was not clearly established in 1986 the sheriffs in these cases are protected by qualified immunity. What about 1991?

Brinson v. McKeeman

992 F. Supp. 897 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Dec 31, 1997

on the lawfulness of the defendant’s actions, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity 47 Whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law is essentially a legal question. 48 In … a Section 1983 lawsuit, the relevant inquiry is whether the legal right which the plaintiff asserts was violated was clearly established under federal law. 49 Whether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held

Pena ex rel. Estate of Cornell v. Givens

637 F. App'x 775 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 23, 2015

Sheehan, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 1765, 1776 , 191 L.Ed.2d 856 (2015) (“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 … Qualified immunity thus attaches unless the law is clearly established that the defendant’s conduct amounted to a seizure.

Robert J. Alfonso v. Dr. John C. Lund

783 F.2d 958 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 10, 1986

The finding on competency of the doctor to testify was one for determination by the court, Fed.R.Evid. 104(a); this finding should not be reversed unless it was clearly erroneous. See United States v. … Defendants argued that the proof was defective because the medical evidence failed to establish that defendants’ negligence was the cause of death.

Struck v. Hackett

668 A.2d 411 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 27, 1995

“Under the qualified immunity doctrine, government officials performing discretionary functions are immune from suit in actions brought pursuant to § 1983 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … The application of the qualified immunity doctrine turns on the “objective legal reasonableness of the official’s action viewed in light of the ‘clearly established’ ” legal rules at the time the action was taken.

Lefemine v. Davis

732 F. Supp. 2d 614 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Jul 8, 2010

Qualified Immunity a. … Individual Capacity Defendants allege that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law indicating that their conduct would violate Plaintiffs constitutional rights. (Defs. Mem.

Lion Boulos, Individually and Doing Business as Abco Food Stores v. Richard D. Wilson

834 F.2d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 23, 1987

Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” … To rule on the claim, the court must decide whether the inspections violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” Harlow, supra, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Derrick Neely-Beytarik-El v. Daniel Conley

912 F.3d 989 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 2, 2019

Turning to the issue of qualified immunity, Mr. Neely-Bey asserted that it was clearly established that IDOC could not restrict his right to practice his religion ex- cept when required by penological interests. Mr. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil “liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable per- son would have known.’”