Case law

A.M. ex rel. Youngers v. New Mexico Department of Health

148 F. Supp. 3d 1232 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 7, 2015

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis. … with the prior case law and granted qualified immunity for lack of clearly established law.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 12, 2002

However, district employees enjoy a qualified immunity from such liability unless their conduct violated clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.

Fabiano v. City of Palos Hills

336 Ill. App. 3d 635 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 25, 2002

Qualified Immunity Defendants further argue that they enjoy qualified immunity from section 1983 liability because, even if they in fact lacked probable cause to prosecute Sandra Fabiano, they reasonably believed that they … “But if a reasonable officer would not have believed that the person had committed a crime, then the officer, whatever he did or did not believe, is acting contrary to clearly established law and therefore has no immunity

Omni Behavioral Health v. Steve Miller

285 F.3d 646 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 21, 2002

But, public officials are entitled to qualified immunity and shielded from liability when their conduct does not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … immunity test and prove that such a right was clearly established.

Alton v. Hopgood

994 F. Supp. 827 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 18, 1998

Although the Fifth Circuit has clearly established a two-step inquiry for qualified immunity, confusion abounds in the case law and in the briefs submitted to this Court. … Although holding that qualified immunity shielded the defendant's from liability, at least one Court has held on similar facts that such rights are clearly established. See Nesmith Through Nesmith v.

Drevdahl v. City of Fairfield

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 2, 2022

“Qualified immunity protects 7 government officials from civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly 8 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Ct. 2042, 2044 (2015) (“Qualified 11 immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a 12 statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the

Buzzi v. Gomez

24 F. Supp. 2d 1352 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 28, 1998

Substantiating Violations of Clearly Established Constitutional Law To overcome qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must show that: (1) Alvarez violated a federal constitutional right; and (2) that the right was clearly established … clearly established law.

R. Scott Sexton v. Ronald Martin

210 F.3d 905 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 19, 2000

established for purposes of the Harlow qualified immunity standard." … In Martin's supplementary motion for summary judgment, Martin argues in the qualified immunity portion of this brief that he "is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that he could be guilty

Amanda Smith v. R. Ray

781 F.3d 95 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 18, 2015

The second prong of the qualified-immunity inquiry asks whether the right was clearly established at the time the violation occurred such … Supp. at 580 5 In arguing that the unconstitutionality of his conduct was not clearly established, Ray argues that it was not clearly established that the hair pulling by itself would constitute excessive force

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.

Diane Sigismondi Judy v. Eastern West Virginia Community and Technical College

West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 25, 2022

As discussed herein, Petitioner pled facts demonstrating a violation of this clearly established law, so, per Marple, Eastern is entitled to no qualified immunity here. … clearly established statutory law.

Judge v. Shikellamy School District

135 F. Supp. 3d 284 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2015

In determining whether a constitutional right was clearly established, a broad and generalized, declaration that a clearly established federal right was violated is insufficient. See Anderson v. … Put another way, for the purposes of the qualified immunity analysis, a right is considered clearly established if “it would be clear to a reasonable officer, that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.”

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.

Alto v. City of Chicago

863 F. Supp. 658 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 25, 1994

Qualified immunity will apply to an officer’s alleged misconduct unless (1) the plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated, and (2) these rights were “clearly established” at the time the alleged violation occurred. … Because the court could not find such actions clearly unreasonable under the circumstances, qualified immunity was appropriate. Id.

Birkeland v. Jorgenson

District Court, D. Minnesota · May 1, 2019

However, the Court must also consider the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, whether the right was “clearly established.” … Therefore, the alleged right at issue is not clearly established, and the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. 2.

Robinson v. City of San Diego

954 F. Supp. 2d 1010 · District Court, S.D. California · May 28, 2013

clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue. … Specific binding precedent is not required to show that a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.

Michael McIntyre and Laura McIntyre, Individually and on Behalf of Their Children, K.M., L.M., C.M., M.M., and L.M. v. El Paso Independent School District, Dr. Lorenzo Garcia, and Mark Mendoza

59 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1387 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 24, 2016

Here, the McIntyres challenge only the officer’s “entitlement to qualified immunity on the substantive due process claim,” arguing he violated their clearly established rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by “swear[ing] … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “courts may not award damages against a government official in his personal .capacity unless ‘the official violated a statutory or constitutional right,’ and ‘the right was “clearly

Soto v. Bzdel

214 F. Supp. 2d 69 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 26, 2002

was clearly established at the time of the [official’s] alleged violation.” … If courts deciding § 1983 suits on the basis of qualified immunity were to tackle the difficult substantive law, then the law would become 'clearly established' so that officers presented with similar factual scenarios in

Hicks v. Phipps

765 F. Supp. 1541 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Feb 5, 1990

Public officials have qualified immunity under the rule of Harlow v. … Therefore, Vanover is entitled to qualified immunity from Mrs. Hicks’ claim for civil damages.

Reilly v. Vadlamudi

680 F.3d 617 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 25, 2012

Qualified immunity protects state officials, including prison employees, so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … In resolving qualified immunity claims, we ask whether: (1) the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, show a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) the right at issue was “clearly established” at the