Case law

Martin v. City of Oceanside

205 F. Supp. 2d 1142 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 7, 2002

However, the Court finds that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate a clearly established right of plaintiffs. … Therefore, the officers did not violate a clearly established right of plaintiffs. The *1153 officers are entitled to qualified immunity as to this claim. 3.

Ralph Thomas v. Frank O. Gunter Karen Shortridge, Superintendent Robert Houston, Associate Superintendent

103 F.3d 700 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 8, 1997

operation of penal institutions, enjoy qualified immunity. … The proper inquiry in the present case, therefore, is whether the free exercise of religion within a penal setting is a clearly established right. It has been “clearly established” since Cruz v.

Trevino v. Gates

798 F. Supp. 621 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 7, 1992

established law. … Under Harlow , the council members would be entitled to qualified immunity for acts in the course of their duties “insofar as their conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Johnson-El v. Schoemehl

878 F.2d 1043 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 22, 1989

of clearly established law. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039 (1987) (to overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege that the official violated a clearly established right, the contours of which are sufficiently clear that

Angel Mendez v. County of Los Angeles

815 F.3d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 2, 2016

The court also held that its conclusions in each respect were supported by clearly established law and that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. … In the absence of clearly established law that squarely governs the situation here, qualified immunity is appropriate on the knock-and-announce claim. Id. at 309.

Sandra T.E. v. Grindle

599 F.3d 583 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 17, 2010

Grindle moved for summary judgment, claiming she was entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs had failed to estab- lish a violation of a clearly established right. … If they do, we ask whether the violated right was “clearly established” at the time of alleged violation. If so, the official is not entitled to qualified immunity from suit. See Michael C. v.

Rita Carroll v. Fredrick W. Pfeffer

262 F.3d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 23, 2001

Qualified immunity is a defense available to government officials who can prove that their conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Next, Carroll asserts that Officer Pfeffer was not entitled to summary judgment based upon qualified immunity because he violated her clearly established constitutional right to freedom of speech by retaliating against her

Calderon v. State of Kansas

24 F. Supp. 2d 1138 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 22, 1998

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are shielded from liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … “In analyzing qualified immunity claims, we first ask if a plaintiff has asserted the violation of a constitutional right at all, and then assess whether the right was clearly established at the time of a defendant’s actions

Phyllis J. May v. City of Nahunta, Georgia

846 F.3d 1320 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 19, 2017

In evaluating a government actor’s entitlement to qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has developed an objective-reasonableness test wherein “the official’s actions must be evaluated against ‘clearly established law,’ … Second, we determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of alleged conduct. Id.

Kaplan v. Pointer

501 A.2d 1269 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 1985

. at 2701 (absolute immunity deemed “a functionally mandated incident of the President’s unique office”), while Harlow held that a presidential aide was entitled only to a qualified immunity, 457 U.S. at 809-14, 102 S.Ct. … Forsyth, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (granting former Attorney General of the United States qualified rather than absolute immunity from suit for damages arising out of allegedly unconstitutional conduct

Dugas v. Jefferson County

931 F. Supp. 1315 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Jun 21, 1996

Underlying Policy and Principles of Analysis The doctrine of qualified immunity affords protection against individual liability for civil damages to officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The seminal qualified immunity decision, Harlow v.

George WICKS, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MISSISSIPPI STATE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, Et Al., Defendants, Hazel Cook, Defendant-Appellant

41 F.3d 991 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 6, 1995

To overcome the immunity defense, the complaint must allege facts that, if proven, would demonstrate that Cook violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. 12 Heightened pleading demands more than bald … While Wicks does allege racial animus, an element of the prima facie case for his discrimination claim, he fails to allege any conduct of Cook that could be considered to “violate a clearly established statutory ... right

Rioux v. City of Atlanta, Ga.

520 F.3d 1269 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 18, 2008

However, the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis asks the question “in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.” … Because pre-existing law did not provide fair warning to Appellees that demoting Rioux under these circumstances would violate clearly established federal law, Ap-pellees are entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Padgett v. Wright

587 F.3d 983 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 20, 2009

The reasoning behind this departure from the general rule is that qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; ... it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to … at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Fittanto v. Klein

788 F. Supp. 1451 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 18, 1992

Because the law in 1984 and 1985 was not clearly established, the court held that the defendants who interviewed the children were entitled to qualified immunity. Id. … Because the law in this area is not clearly established, defendant Klein is entitled to qualified immunity for her conduct. Plaintiffs counter that this case is remarkably like Snell v.

Quintana v. City and County of Denver

District Court, D. Colorado · Jan 22, 2021

Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Defendants Perez and Alexander violated a clearly established right by detaining Plaintiff, she has not met her burden to overcome the defense of qualified immunity. … Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Individual Defendants violated a clearly established right, Plaintiff has not met her burden to overcome the defense of qualified immunity.

WVDHHR v. V.P.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 21, 2019

In the proceedings below and on appeal, the Guardians assert that the DHHR Petitioners are precluded from relying on qualified immunity protections because the DHHR Petitioners violated a clearly established right. … established constitutional or statutory right, and no basis for piercing the DHHR Petitioners’ qualified immunity exists.

Parker v. Blackwell

23 F.4th 517 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 13, 2022

Sheriff Blackwell asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … A plaintiff seeking to defeat qualified immunity must show that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct. Morgan v.

Hardesty v. City of Ecorse

623 F. Supp. 2d 855 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jun 1, 2009

Therefore, if the plaintiff fails to establish either of the two requirements set forth in Saucier, then qualified immunity applies. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . In January 2009, in Pearson v. … Thus, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Second, even if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, qualified immunity applies unless the right was clearly established. Id.

Watkins v. United States Postal Employee

611 F. App'x 549 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 4, 2015

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for individual government officials performing discretionary functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In considering whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, the court must decide whether the facts alleged show the defendant violated a constitutional right and whether the right was clearly established.