Case law

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.

Vines v. City of Dallas, Tex.

851 F. Supp. 254 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 28, 1994

Defendant Hart has asserted the defense of qualified immunity to Plaintiffs claim. In determining whether Defendant Hart has established her defense of qualified immunity, the Court uses a two-prong analysis. … Defendant Hart has asserted the defense of qualified immunity to Plaintiffs claim. Therefore, the Court must decide whether Hart violated a clearly established right of the Plaintiff. The Court finds that Hart did not.

Long v. Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority

1 Am. Tribal Law 385 · Mohegan Gaming Disputes Trial Court · Dec 5, 1997

The Discriminatory Employment Practices Ordinance further establishes two types of matters which may be brought to The Gaming Disputes Court, Claims and Appeals, and those qualified to file either one are strictly and narrowly … Section 502 of Mohegan Tribal Ordinance 95-4, which established the Gaming Disputes Court, specifies that nothing in the ordinance establishing the Gaming Disputes Court “shall be construed as a waiver of the sovereign immunity

Evett v. DETNTFF

330 F.3d 681 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 3, 2003

The law could not be more clear that an individual has a clearly established right to be free from unlawful arrest. … First, the plaintiff must allege the violation of a clearly established right.

Brittany J. Buckley v. Hennepin County

9 F.4th 757 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 16, 2021

immunity, (v) the physician defendants are entitled to qualified immunity “because the Court has seen no evidence that designing, implementing, and overseeing the ketamine studies violated a clearly established right,” and … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known

Osborne v. Harris County

97 F. Supp. 3d 911 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 31, 2015

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 known … A Clearly Established Right The remaining qualified immunity issue is whether the deputies had fair notice that their actions violated a clearly established right.

Elfers v. Varnau

101 F. Supp. 3d 753 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 2015

Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … The court held that because this right was not “clearly established,” the coroner was entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim brought after the wrong body was delivered to the family of the decedent.

Braxton v. Matthews

883 F. Supp. 1068 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Apr 28, 1995

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Next the Court must examine whether Defendant is protected from suit by the doctrine of qualified immunity. In Wiley v. … if the officer’s ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’

Sarah Doe v. Jerald Neveleff

751 F.3d 383 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 6, 2014

“[E]valuating qualified immunity is a two-step process, and the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that a government official is not entitled to qualified immunity.” Wyatt v. … Even if we were to construe the Fifth Amendment to extend so far, no established authority at the time of the assaults would have enabled Plaintiffs to overcome qualified immunity.

Hans Bothke v. Fluor Engineers & Constructors, Inc., and W.J. Terry

834 F.2d 804 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 16, 1987

Thus, the flaw in the reasoning of Bothke I was that the panel examined Terry’s qualified immunity in a Bivens action by looking to see if she had violated Bothke’s clearly established statutory rights. … If Bothke had a clearly established constitutional right to have his March 15 letter construed as a request for abatement, then Terry’s right to assert qualified immunity would depend on the objective reasonableness of Terry

Estate of Redd v. Love

62 F. Supp. 3d 1268 · District Court, D. Utah · Oct 15, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Agent Barnes is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

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.

David Allen v. Charles McClelland, Jr.

815 F.3d 239 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 9, 2016

DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … A plaintiff can overcome a qualified immunity defense by showing “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.

Putnam v. Keller

332 F.3d 541 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 22, 2003

We will affirm a grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity if the "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … clearly established.

Maxfield v. Bressler

20 F. Supp. 3d 1084 · District Court, D. Colorado · Nov 18, 2013

To resolve qualified immunity claims, a court must consider two elements: (1) whether a constitutional violation occurred, and (2) whether the violated right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. … However, they assert that Bresslér is entitled to qualified immunity from suit because the violated right was not 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

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.

Schubert v. City of Rye

775 F. Supp. 2d 689 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2011

A government official may be entitled to qualified immunity if either his “conduct did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights or if it would have been objectively reasonable for the official to believe that his … “A defendant pleading qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss is entitled to prevail if the allegations in the complaint fail to state a claim of violation of clearly established law.” Id.

Amanda Reich v. City of Elizabethtown, Ky.

945 F.3d 968 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 19, 2019

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … This brings me to the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis—clearly established 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.