Case law

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

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

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 ...

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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.’”

Somers v. Thurman

109 F.3d 614 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 25, 1997

To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, we conduct a two-part analysis: (1) We consider whether the law governing the official’s conduct was clearly established. … Therefore, an official is denied qualified immunity only if the law was clearly established and a reasonable official could not have believed the conduct was lawful.

McAdoo v. Texas

565 F. Supp. 2d 733 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Sep 27, 2005

“A public official performing a discretionary function enjoys qualified immunity in a civil action, provided the conduct alleged did not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “In addressing a claim of qualified immunity, a court must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, which is a purely legal question.” Id.

Shawna Hess v. Carol Abels

714 F.3d 1048 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 26, 2013

If it was not clearly established, regardless of whether Hess has articulated a constitutional violation, the City employees are entitled to qualified immunity. See Livers v. … There are two primary obstacles to Lesher’s capacity to serve as clearly established law for the purposes of this qualified immunity analysis.

Rodgers v. Horsley

39 F.3d 308 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 5, 1994

DISCUSSION 9 Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the federal "rights" allegedly violated were "clearly established." Barts v. … Instead, the question in this case, as in all qualified immunity cases, is fact specific: in May 1991, was it clearly established in this circuit that it was unconstitutional for a mental institution to fail to supervise

Ramirez v. Health Partners

193 Ariz. 325 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Jun 23, 1998

The Act’s qualified immunity provisions are consistent with the majority (if not unanimous) rule of other jurisdictions, the UAGA, and public policy. … . ¶ 33 Plaintiffs finally contend the Act’s qualified immunity provisions violate Arizona’s equal protection clause, Ariz.

Wilkerson v. University of North Texas ex rel. Board of Regents

223 F. Supp. 3d 592 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Nov 30, 2016

Qualified and Official Immunity Defendants assert qualified and official immunity with regard to all of Plaintiffs claims against the Individual Defendants. … Seitz, the Sixth Circuit held that an engagement was not a clearly established right that could overcome qualified immunity. 38 F.3d 264, 275-76 (6th Cir. 1984).

Tricoci v. Vidljinovic

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 13, 2025

This brings the Court to Defendants’ third argument: qualified immunity. … 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 person would have

Sullivan v. United States Postal Service

944 F. Supp. 191 · District Court, W.D. New York · Nov 5, 1996

Qualified Immunity Defense It is clear that summary judgment must be granted as to Brown on the basis of qualified immunity. … Even when such rights are clearly established, qualified immunity also protects a government official if it is objectively reasonable for [the official] to believe that his acts did not violate those rights.” Russell v.

Jennifer Cruz v. the City of Anaheim

765 F.3d 1076 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 28, 2014

CITY OF ANAHEIM threatening gesture, it would clearly be unreasonable for the officers to shoot him after he stopped his vehicle and opened the door.

Michael J. Bakalis v. Jenni Golembeski Mark R. Stephens Merrill Becker James Durkin

35 F.3d 318 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 8, 1994

However, a plaintiff may not escape the doctrine of qualified immunity by alleging violation of a clearly established, but very broad, constitutional right. [0]ur cases establish that the right the official is alleged to … Walker, 812 F.2d 304, 307-08 (7th Cir.1987), we explained: [The Harlow qualified immunity] test would have little bite if a right “clearly established” at any level of generality could survive it.