Case law

El Paso Independent School District v. McIntyre

457 S.W.3d 475 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Aug 6, 2014

and qualified immunity. … The test for qualified immunity requires the court to engage in a two part inquiry: (1) whether a public official’s conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) whether the right was “clearly established

Wendell Domina, Blaise Riggs, Linden Snyder, Van Harpold, and Jerry Soule v. George Van Pelt, Individually Klayton Johnson, Individually Dale Shaul, Individually and Charles Person, Individually

235 F.3d 1091 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 26, 2000

facts show a violation of clearly established law. … IV. 17 The commissioners would nonetheless be protected by qualified immunity if in early 1998 (the time of their alleged misconduct) it was not clearly established that the speech in which Mr.

ANTHONY LEO v. CAROL MICI, Commissioner of Correction, MICHAEL RODRIGUES, Superintendent of MCI-Concord, SHEILA CREATON-KELLY, Deputy Superintendent of Re-Entry of MCI- Concord, and DANNY ORTIZ, Director of the Secure Adjustment Unit at MCI-Concord

Massachusetts Superior Court · Feb 24, 2025

to interfere) with a clearly established state right through "threats, intimidation, or coercion." … See LaChance, 463 Mass. at 778 (holding defendants entitled to qualified immunity under MCRA).

Brandon v. Lotter

976 F. Supp. 872 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Sep 2, 1997

did not violate clearly established law. … This being the case, Laux did not violate clearly established law when he failed to immediately arrest Lotter and Nissen or take some other related action, and he is entitled to qualified immunity as a result.

Phillips v. Hust

588 F.3d 652 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 2, 2009

Second, assuming a constitutional violation, is Hust nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because the relevant constitutional right was not “clearly established” at the time she acted? … Rather, we proceed directly to ask whether Hust is entitled to qualified immunity. C A state officer is not protected by qualified immunity where he or she has violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Ex Parte Alabama Dept. of Youth Services

880 So. 2d 393 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Oct 10, 2003

Federal Qualified Immunity Wood argues that he is entitled to federal qualified immunity from the Doe plaintiffs' federal § 1983 claim against him. … "An official is entitled to qualified immunity if he is performing discretionary functions and his actions do `"not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

African Trade & Information Center, Inc., Mohamoud D. Ahmed, and Alan W. Gates v. James F. Abromaitis

294 F.3d 355 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 23, 2002

The First Amendment Claim The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Even if a district court decision could “establish” a right for the purpose of the qualified immunity inquiry, A.F.C.

Sheryl J. Howard v. Jan Dickerson, and Charles Milton, Keith Purdue

34 F.3d 978 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 7, 1994

The Martin court upheld the denial of qualified immunity because Garcia clearly established pretrial detainees share the same protection from deliberate indifference to serious medical needs as convicted inmates. … When a defendant raises the issue of qualified immunity on a summary judgment motion, the plaintiff must demonstrate the alleged conduct constituted a violation of law and the law was clearly established at the time of the

Gilmore v. Bostic

659 F. Supp. 2d 755 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 22, 2009

in a prison’s sex offender treatment program is not clearly established. … immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known.

Williams v. Heard

533 F. Supp. 1153 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 8, 1982

With respect to the second prong, the reasonableness requirement, the court stated that qualified immunity defense is not available where the constitutional right infringed by defendants was clearly established at the time … Applying this to the facts of the case, the Fifth Circuit held that the lower court’s finding of qualified immunity was clearly erroneous because the defendant’s actions were not reasonable.

Kennedy v. City of Ridgefield

411 F.3d 1134 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 22, 2005

If Shields’s conduct did not violate Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights, he is entitled to qualified immunity. We now turn to those questions. B. … This doctrine was clearly established by the time the events of this case took place. Accordingly, the trial court’s denial of Shields’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is hereby AFFIRMED.

Craig v. Martin

49 F.4th 404 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 8, 2022

particular conduct violated clearly established law is Darden v. … Moreover, as we have noted before, the plaintiffs’ reliance on the cases above “requires us to assume that Fifth Circuit precedent alone can clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes, something the

Wilcoxon v. City of Detroit Election Commission

301 Mich. App. 619 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 2013

DEFENDANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY UNDER § 4 OF THE MMMA The language of § 4 indicates that a “qualifying patient” who has been issued and possesses a registry *609 identification card is immune from arrest and prosecution … In other words, the language establishing limited immunity in § 4 of the MMMA expressly conditions that immunity on the person possessing no amount of marijuana that does not qualify as usable marijuana under the applicable

Hall v. Ryan

957 F.2d 402 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 28, 1992

The defendants’ summary judgment motion argues that they were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that the law at the time of the incident “did not clearly establish the right to have officers diagnose pre-trial … Judge Baker noted that qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Trey Sims v. Kenneth Labowitz

885 F.3d 254 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 14, 2018

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or other rights that a reasonable officer would have … clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Front Royal & Warren County Industrial Park Corp. v. Town of Front Royal

708 F. Supp. 1477 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 16, 1989

litigation and, at the same time, they can be held liable for the violation of a clearly established constitutionally-protected right. … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which the official knows or reasonably should be aware.”

Smith v. Deering

880 F. Supp. 816 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Dec 20, 1994

Defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity which requires the Court to determine whether Defendants violated clearly established Constitutional law. 1. … The test for qualified immunity is “whether a reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.” Anderson v.

Whittier v. Kobayashi

581 F.3d 1304 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 31, 2009

DISCUSSION “Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional … “To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must satisfy a two prong test; he must show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

Arkansas State Medical Board v. Byers

521 S.W.3d 459 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 8, 2017

To stave off summary judgment on qualified immunity, a civil-rights plaintiff must assert a constitutional violation, demonstrate that the constitutional right is clearly established, and raise a genuine issue of fact … as to whether the official would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right.

Picariello v. Commonwealth

54 Pa. Commw. 252 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 1980

However, plaintiff’s complaint clearly contradicts that claim, by alleging that the Secretary acted as a Commonwealth agent. 6 The guidelines established in DuBree v. … Defendant shall file an answer, possibly with new matter addressing the issue of qualified official immunity, if desired.