Case law

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.

Chateaubriand v. Gaspard

97 F.3d 1218 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 7, 1996

of qualified immunity. 11 The Caucus leaders interlocutorily appeal from the district court's order denying them summary judgment based on absolute and qualified immunity. … The district court further denied summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds because "discharging a public employee in retaliation for protected speech violated clearly established law of which a reasonable person would

Maria S. v. Garza

912 F.3d 778 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 4, 2019

The qualified immunity analysis has two prongs: (1) whether the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, demonstrate that an officer violated a federal right and (2) whether the right was clearly established … The district court correctly awarded qualified immunity. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court's grant of qualified immunity. Agent Garza does not recall being told this.

In re: Allen v.

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 2, 1997

We hold, therefore, that an official who performs an act clearly established to be beyond the scope of his discretionary authority is not entitled to claim qualified immunity under § 1983. … established for qualified immunity purposes."

Thomas Howell v. Town of Ball

827 F.3d 515 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 1, 2016

Regarding the second prong of qualified immunity analysis, “a defendant cannot be said to have violated a clearly established right unless the right’s contours were sufficiently definite that any reasonable official in the … The court ultimately concluded that the Board defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time Howell was fired, it was not clearly established whether his involvement in the FBI investigation was protected

David H. Haynes v. City of Circleville, Ohio

474 F.3d 357 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 25, 2007

Qualified immunity When government officials are performing discretionary functions, their actions are generally, shielded from civil liability as long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Haynes is a fortiori unable to satisfy the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis — that the constitutional right was clearly established. C.

Omar v. Casterline

288 F. Supp. 2d 775 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Sep 11, 2003

In considering the defendants’ qualified immunity claim, we must remain cognizant of the fact that the “qualified ... immunity doctrine was established to reconcile two competing interests. … that the official’s actions violated clearly established federal law.

Thompson v. Souza

111 F.3d 694 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 16, 1997

If it was not clearly established, the official is entitled to immunity from suit. … Thus, 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.

Yeasin v. Durham

224 F. Supp. 3d 1194 · District Court, D. Kansas · Dec 1, 2016

plaintiff shows (1) the defendant’s violation of a constitutional right; and (2) that the right the official violated was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. 35 Accordingly, the qualified immunity … immunity from a claim of a First Amendment violation as such rights were not clearly established); Bell v.

Smyser v. City of Peoria

215 Ariz. 428 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Jun 12, 2007

Nothing in Clouse suggests that the legislature had authority to grant either absolute or qualified immunity only to the state; clearly, the opinion upholds the legislature’s authority with respect to “public entities and … He noted that "common law immunity of the state’s subgovernmental units was not recognized or established *434 for all units or for all purposes.

RITSCHEL v. City of Fountain Valley

40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 48 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 2006

Here, the court had heard the bulk of the evidence during the qualified immunity defense phase. … When a court determines “no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” (Ibid.)

Palma v. Atlantic County

53 F. Supp. 2d 743 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 15, 1999

Qualified immunity “shield[s officers] 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 known.” … [to] determine whether [D]efendant[s][are] entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that [their] conduct did ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

COWAN v. SCHARFENBERG

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 4, 2025

Div. 2024). 20 Defendants argue that qualified immunity also bars Plaintiffs’ malicious prosecution claim. … Evanson, 615 F.3d 197, 223 (3d Cir. 2010) (stating that the defendant bears “[t]he burden of establishing entitlement to qualified immunity”). 28 future event . . .

Martínez-Rodríguez v. Guevara

597 F.3d 414 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 1, 2010

First, they assume that Defendants are protected by qualified immunity rather than absolute immunity. … The qualified immunity doctrine protects federal and state officials from civil liability in the performance of "discretionary functions . . . insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Jones v. United States of America

934 F. Supp. 2d 284 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2013

Qualified Immunity Officer Kadiev asserts the defense of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” Hunter v. … Qualified immunity shields 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

Lawmaster v. Ward

125 F.3d 1341 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 18, 1997

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … We would be placing an impracticable burden on plaintiffs if we required them to cite to a factually identical case before determining they showed the law was "clearly established" and cleared the qualified immunity hurdle

Henry Lyons v. F. Wayne Vaught

781 F.3d 958 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 24, 2015

We have jurisdiction over the denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, including “whether a particular complaint sufficiently alleges a clearly established violation of law.” Ashcroft v. … established’ for purposes of the . . . qualified immunity standard.”

Gorman v. Bishop

919 F. Supp. 326 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Mar 26, 1996

“In other words, to decide whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, a court must determine whether the official’s action was objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established … Accordingly, Bishop is entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. C.

Baker v. Schwarb

40 F. Supp. 3d 881 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 19, 2014

Defendants did not violate any of Plaintiffs’ clearly established rights under the Fourth Amendment and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. B. … , that right was not clearly established.

Albert Hansen v. Ryan Aper

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 21, 2018

App’x 479, 484 (6th Cir. 2015) (reviewing a denial of qualified immunity to determine whether a prisoner’s constitutional right was clearly established). … Indisputably, the right to be free from “excessively forceful handcuffing” is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. Kostrzewa v. City of Troy, 247 F.3d 633, 641 (6th Cir. 2001); see also O’Malley v.