Case law

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).

Corcoran v. Fletcher

160 F. Supp. 2d 1085 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 26, 2001

Determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity, then, “requires a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established? … Clearly Established Law “[W]hether the law was clearly established ... is a pure question of law for the court to decide.” Mendoza v. Block, 27 F.3d 1357, 1360 (9th Cir.1994).

Huerta v. Hillsborough County

720 So. 2d 276 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 23, 1998

The parties agree that a government official, such as Bean, is entitled to qualified immunity from civil suit in the performance of discretionary functions when the official's conduct does not violate any clearly established … The trial court, in applying this principle of law, opined that Huerta's constitutional rights were not clearly established at the time of his termination and ruled that Bean was entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

Francine Solomon v. Auburn Hills Police Department, a Municipal Corporation, Officer David Miller

389 F.3d 167 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 10, 2004

Kiefer, 310 F.3d 937, 944 (6th Cir.2002) (recognizing that “right to be free from ‘excessively forceful handcuffing’ is a clearly established right for qualified immunity purposes”); Turek v. … Constitutional Right Clearly Established Once a potential violation of a plaintiffs constitutional right has been established, we next decide whether that right was clearly established.

Patton v. Wood County Humane Society

154 Ohio App. 3d 670 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2003

immunity from suit in a Section 1983 action so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … of clearly established law and the information that he possessed.

Bates v. Harvey

518 F.3d 1233 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 4, 2008

immunity from this claim because the law was clearly established that he could not enter Mrs. … . . can clearly establish the law.”

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.

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."

Brad Williams v. Horace Walters

772 F.3d 1307 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 8, 2014

or statutory right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” … established constitutional rights, Walters is not entitled to qualified immunity.

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

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 ...

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.

Pennington v. Teufel

396 F. Supp. 2d 715 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Aug 26, 2005

Because Plaintiffs have not alleged and cannot show that any of these Defendants violated any clearly established federal law, the Court agrees that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery’ ”) (quoting Mitchell v.

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.

Gregory Lambert, as Administrator of the Estate of Harrison Lambert v. Town of Merrimack, et al.

2019 DNH 053 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Aug 6, 2018

Where, as here, the movant raises a qualified immunity defense, the nonmoving party has the burden of demonstrating that the law was clearly established during the relevant time period. See Mitchell v. … Construed generously, the Estate's objection contains citations to six decisions bearing on the clearly established prong of qualified immunity.

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

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.