Case law

Román Meléndez v. Inclán

641 F. Supp. 998 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 9, 1986

immunity test requires a two part analysis: 1) whether the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right “clearly established” at the time of the violation, and 2) whether the government official asserting the qualified … In the present case, defendant makes no argument in support of his claim for a qualified immunity that the law prohibiting patronage dismissals was not clearly established.

Steven Lefemine v. Dan Wideman

672 F.3d 292 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 5, 2012

WIDEMAN district court held that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from suit in their individual capacities because the specific rights at issue were not clearly established at the time of the violations. … The doctrine of qualified immunity "protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their con- duct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu- tional rights of which a reasonable

Lauren Graham v. C. Gagnon

831 F.3d 176 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 27, 2016

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The shield of qualified immunity is lost when a government official (1) violates a constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established. See, e.g., Merchant, 677 F.3d at 661.

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

Garrett Brock Trapnell v. George Ralston J.A. O'Brien Joseph Petrowkey and A.W. Bayles

819 F.2d 182 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 18, 1987

On the other hand, if a defendant’s conduct 1 violated clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known, the defendant is not shielded by qualified immunity. … Accordingly, appellants are shielded by qualified immunity from the burden of defending appellee’s procedural due process claim.

Buxton v. Nolte

473 F. Supp. 2d 802 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 12, 2007

Since the facts do not give rise to a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Officer Nolte is entitled to qualified immunity on the arrest without probable cause claim. b. … Officer Nolte is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violated a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Antonio Webb v. Lori Lakey

111 F.4th 939 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 7, 2024

The court concluded that Webb failed to present sufficient evidence to establish any constitutional violation much less a violation of clearly established 2 The Honorable Greg Kays, United States District … The court explained that “allowing Defendants to assert qualified immunity at trial would be procedurally problematic and arguably unfair to Plaintiff.” Qualified immunity may be considered at trial, see Spann v.

Palmer v. Johnson

193 F.3d 346 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 19, 1999

The bifurcated test for qualified immunity asks whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established right and, if so, whether the defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonable. … Thus, for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis, Palmer has demonstrated a violation of his clearly established rights under the Eighth Amendment.

Baljinder Singh SANGHA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent

103 F.3d 1482 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 9, 1997

This section gives the Attorney General the discretion to grant asylum to aliens who qualify as “refugees.” … Applicants can no longer establish that their persecution was “on account of’ political opinion by inference, unless the inference is one that is clearly to be drawn from facts in evidence.

Ammons v. Washington Department of Social & Health Services

648 F.3d 1020 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 17, 2011

In reviewing the denial of qualified immunity, we consider the “purely legal issue of whether facts alleged by the plaintiff support a claim of violation of clearly established law” such that appellants are not immune from … This conclusion, at least, serves as clearly established law.

Donald Gravelet-Blondin v. Sgt Jeff Shelton

728 F.3d 1086 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 6, 2013

Qualified Immunity Even so, Sgt. Shelton is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The court granted qualified immunity, however, finding that the law in 2004 was not sufficiently well-established to have alerted officers that this use of force was unconstitutional.

Elder v. Holloway

975 F.2d 1388 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 17, 1992

In opposition to the officers' motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity, Elder proffered three out-of-state cases to show that the law was clearly established that a warrant was required to make a "constructive entry … Supreme Court's recent approach to qualified immunity.

Tiffanie Hupp v. State Trooper Seth Cook

931 F.3d 307 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 25, 2019

“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 … An official is not entitled to qualified immunity if he or she deprived an individual of a constitutional right and that right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 231.

Rodriguez Vazquez v. Lopez-Martinez

253 F. Supp. 2d 164 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 21, 2003

The Defendants raised the issue of their qualified immunity in the Answer to the Complaint (affirmative defense). 2. The Defendants had the burden to prove their affirmative defense of qualified immunity. 3. … The law on politically motivated terminations is clearly established. 6.

Volpi v. Center Moriches Union Free School District

9 F. Supp. 3d 255 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 24, 2014

Qualified immunity protects an official from civil liability if their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Taravella v. … When evaluating whether qualified immunity applies, the court must engage in a two-part inquiry: 1) whether the constitutional right has been violated; and 2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the

Hart v. Miller

609 N.W.2d 138 · South Dakota Supreme Court · Apr 19, 2000

To find whether qualified immunity applies, the test is to ask if the officer’s conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable officer would have known at the time. Harlow v. … the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken.

Rosario-Diaz v. Diaz-Martinez

112 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 24, 1997

If the pretrial rejection of the qualified immunity defense is based on a purely legal ground, such as a finding that the conduct described by the plaintiff, assuming it occurred, transgressed a clearly … deliberate indifference on his part, and, thus, he was entitled (at the least) to qualified immunity.

Finch v. Wemlinger

310 N.W.2d 66 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Sep 11, 1981

In Scheuer the Court defined qualified immunity in these words: [I]n varying scope, a qualified immunity is available to officers of the executive branch of government, the variation being dependent upon the scope of discretion … We will continue to apply the federal standard of qualified immunity in actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought in state court. The burden of pleading the defense of qualified immunity rests with defendants, Gomez v.

Duerscherl v. Foley

681 F. Supp. 1364 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jun 25, 1987

If Foley was not entitled to absolute immunity, he would certainly be entitled to qualified immunity. … Failure to show that the asserted interest is protected by the due process clause essentially establishes the defense of qualified immunity. 3 .

Tamala Jones v. Logan Kulesa

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 18, 2026

immunity is inappropriate where the record does not conclusively establish the lawfulness of an officer’s use of force. … violated a clearly established federal right.’”