Case law

Rustgi v. Board of County Commissioners of County of Weld, Colorado

District Court, D. Colorado · Apr 29, 2021

Because Rustgi possessed a clearly established constitutional right and has alleged a constitutional violation by Sheriff Reams, dismissal is inappropriate on qualified immunity grounds. See Keith v. … was clearly established.

J.M. v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs.

286 F. Supp. 3d 745 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Dec 13, 2017

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The Court will begin with the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis-whether the rights Plaintiff claims the Individual Defendants violated were clearly established at the time of their actions.

Ruttenberg v. Jones

464 F. Supp. 2d 536 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Dec 13, 2006

Thus, a defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity must be resolved “at the earliest possible stage in litigation.” Id. The Supreme Court has established a two-part qualified immunity inquiry. … Meeker, 415 F.3d at 320 ("Only if a plaintiff alleges the violation of a clearly established constitutional right does his complaint survive a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds.”).

Jamila Russell v. Superior Court of the Virgin I

905 F.3d 239 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 25, 2018

plead a violation of clearly established law. … the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.’”

Martínez-Rodríguez v. Guevara

551 F. Supp. 2d 142 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Nov 29, 2007

A three-step process exists for evaluating qualified immunity claims: 1) whether the claimant has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right; 2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the … are entitled to qualified immunity.

Merchant v. Bauer

677 F.3d 656 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 26, 2012

established law and therefore has no immunity"). … Accordingly, the second step in our qualified immunity analysis — whether the Fourth Amendment right was clearly established — must also be resolved in favor of Merchant.

Kingsmill v. Szewczak

117 F. Supp. 3d 657 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 2015

Qualiñed Immunity Officer Szewczak argues' that he is entitled to qualified immunity because “it was not clearly established oh February 9, 2014, that calling a person over to a patrol car and failing to warn that person … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages to the extent that their conduct did not violate clearly-established constitutional rights of which a reasonable officer would have known.

Varrone v. Bilotti

123 F.3d 75 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 18, 1997

It held that, for purposes of qualified immunity, it was clearly established at the time that strip searches of prison visitors could be made only when based upon reasonable suspicion. Varrone v. … The law was "clearly established" if the circuit's decisions "clearly foreshadow" a particular ruling on the issue. Id. Decisions of other circuits also may indicate whether the law was clearly established. See Weber v.

Halley ex rel. J.H. v. Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma State Department of Human Services

176 F. Supp. 3d 1268 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Mar 31, 2016

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … This law was clearly established by 2014. See, e.g., Estate of B.I.C. v.

Cynthia Bloch and Thomas Bloch v. Sheriff L. John Ribar

156 F.3d 673 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 21, 1998

On appeal, the Blochs claim that the district court erred by granting qualified immunity to Ribar. They argue that the right to criticize a public official is a clearly established right under the First Amendment. … defense of qualified immunity.”

Sudler v. City of New York

689 F.3d 159 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 7, 2012

Qualified Immunity 4 Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability where the 5 officials’ conduct was not in violation of a “clearly established” constitutional right. 6 See, e.g., Doninger … it is “‘clearly established’ in the qualified immunity context, which governs the conduct 18 of government officials who are likely neither lawyers nor legal scholars.” 616 F.3d 19 100, 106 (2d Cir. 2010).

Selwyn Vanderpool v. West Virginia DHHR

West Virginia Supreme Court · May 26, 2020

In Crouch, the Court examined whether internal DHHR policy violations rose to the level of being violations of a clearly established right. … Stanley is entitled to qualified immunity based on W. Va.

Lopez v. Robinson

914 F.2d 486 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 17, 1990

the qualified immunity inquiry. … The prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity from this claim.

Pallottino v. City of Rio Rancho

31 F.3d 1023 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 4, 1994

The doctrine of qualified immunity gives the Officers qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit unless they violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Once a defendant to a § 1983 action raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show both facts and law to establish that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Douglas v. Condon

419 F.3d 1097 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 16, 2005

The district court found that no clearly established Fourth Amendment right had been violated by ADA Dobbs in the search of Douglas’s prescription records and that qualified immunity applied. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

McGowan v. United States

825 F.3d 118 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 7, 2016

The issue of qualified immunity was presented in the district court, has been fully briefed on appeal, and turns on *124 the purely legal question of whether McGowan alleged a violation of a clearly established right. … Thus, in light of the absence of authority clearly establishing the claimed right, we are constrained to hold that Rivers is entitled to qualified immunity from McGowan’s Bivens claim.

Hayes v. Mercer County

217 N.J. Super. 614 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 21, 1987

In our discussion of the federal qualified immunity, we stated why the investigator acted in good faith here. … Plaintiffs' remaining points are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Affirmed.

Chanon Miller v. Juan Ramirez

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 27, 2025

conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … immunity “raised . . . on a motion to dismiss . . . will be granted if the com- plaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitu- tional right.” 248 F.3d 1117, 1121 (11th Cir. 2001

Connelly v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

484 F.3d 343 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 10, 2007

in light of the clearly established law at the time of the incident. … Conversely, Connelly, in her response to Fant’s motion, pointed to law and facts tending to establish her claim that Fant’s decision to terminate her was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law, carrying

Duckett v. City of Cedar Park

950 F.2d 272 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 10, 1992

The Supreme Court held that the first inquiry in the examination of a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff “allege[d] the violation of a clearly *277 established constitutional right.” … . § 1983 , holding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because defendants “could not reasonably be charged with knowledge that they might be violating a clearly established right of the Plaintiff.”