Case law

Huertas Morales v. Agosto-Alicea

278 F. Supp. 2d 164 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 1, 2003

Qualified Immunity According to Defendants, the conduct of Juan Agosto Alicea is protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity because it was imminently reasonable and did not violate clearly established law. … The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit and liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable

Heitschmidt v. City of Houston

161 F.3d 834 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 23, 1998

clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, and (2) allege conduct that is objectively unreasonable. … With regard to his unlawful detention claim, Heitschmidt asserts his clearly established right to be free from unreasonable seizure of his person, a right which he maintains includes the clearly established right to be free

Weaver v. Clarke

45 F.3d 1253 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 30, 1995

immunity analysis--whether the right allegedly violated was "clearly established." … CONCLUSION 18 Because Weaver has alleged the violation of a clearly-established constitutional right, the defendant prison officials are not entitled to dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity.

Deezia v. City of Lincoln

350 F. Supp. 3d 868 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Oct 29, 2018

. ----, 136 S.Ct. 305 , 308, 193 L.Ed.2d 255 (2015) (specificity in defining clearly established law for qualified immunity purposes "is especially important in the Fourth Amendment context, where the Court has recognized … For qualified immunity purposes, the question then becomes whether the law at the time of the incident clearly established that the level of force used in this context constituted excessive force. Ehlers v.

Mallin v. City of Eastlake

755 F. Supp. 2d 819 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 29, 2010

Violation of a Clearly Established Right Thompson may still be entitled to qualified immunity if Mallin’s right to be free from having his face slammed into a car and being choked was not clearly established at the time of … Because Mallín failed to carry his burden of proving that a reasonable officer should have known that Gonzales’s actions violated a clearly established right, the Court must grant Gonzales qualified immunity as a matter of

John Meyers v. City of Cincinnati, Scott Johnson, Individually and as City Manager David E. Rager, Individually and as Director of Safety

979 F.2d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 12, 1992

This immunity is premised upon sound policy grounds: where governmental officials have duties that “legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated, the public interest may be better served … Our reasoning in that opinion establishes that the contours of public employee speech were by no means “clearly established” in early 1988. Rather, we referred to the “current somewhat imprecise standard.”

Robison v. Department of Insurance, Finanical Institutions and Professional Registration

District Court, E.D. Missouri · Feb 23, 2022

immunity. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (explaining qualified immunity protects a government official from liability unless his conduct violated a “clearly established” constitutional or statutory right).

Thomas Noon v. Mayor John Smedley

94 F.4th 759 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 4, 2024

Smedley and Kerns claim they are entitled to qualified immunity. … As with every qualified immunity analysis, we are tasked with a two-part inquiry to determine (1) whether a constitutional violation occurred, and (2) whether the right in question was clearly established at the time of the

Vázquez v. Surillo-Ruiz

76 F. Supp. 3d 381 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 7, 2015

Qualified Immunity Individual-capacity Defendants now request permission from the Court to don the protective armor of qualified immunity. … : that individual-capacity Defendants’ alleged conduct violated a “clearly established” constitutional right.

Susan King v. Todd Harwood

852 F.3d 568 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 27, 2017

to qualified immunity. . . . … , because Defendants would lose qualified immunity only if they “recklessly or knowingly” violated King’s clearly established right to be free from malicious prosecution.

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.

Jesus Hernandez v. Unknown Named Agents, et

785 F.3d 117 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 24, 2015

That is the chore of the first prong of the qualified-immunity test, which we do not address. The alleged right at issue was not clearly established, under these facts, in 2010. The judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED. … We hold unanimously that Agent Mesa has qualified immunity from this suit for a Fifth Amendment substantive due process violation because he did not violate any clearly established rights flowing from that Amendment.

Hudgins v. City Of Ashburn

890 F.2d 396 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 24, 1990

The Zeigler/Rich Analysis for Determining Summary Judgment Based on Qualified Immunity 29 Rich recognized that the Supreme Court established its objective-reasonableness test for determining qualified or good-faith immunity … or not that law is clearly established.

James Terry, Jr. v. City of New Orleans

609 F.3d 757 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 21, 2010

Jurisdiction and Standard of Review “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Based on these principles, the Warden’s conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Perez v. Oakland County

466 F.3d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 18, 2006

We thus move to the second step of the qualified immunity test; we determine whether the right violated was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. Myers, 422 F.3d at 352 (citing Estate of Carter v. … We ultimately find that Rice is entitled to qualified immunity because no law exists that would clearly establish for a person in Rice’s position that she was violating Perez’s Eighth Amendment rights.

Vance v. Wade

546 F.3d 774 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 17, 2008

“According to the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … defendant did acts that violated clearly established rights.”

Youngbear v. Thalacker

174 F. Supp. 2d 902 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Nov 8, 2001

Qualified Immunity 1. … The qualified immunity defense should fail if the official violates a clearly established right, because “a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.”

Veneklase v. City of Fargo

78 F.3d 1264 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 24, 1996

immunity and where issue appealed concerned whether or not certain given facts showed violation of "clearly established" law). … officials performing discretionary functions may rely on the defense of qualified immunity to shield them from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Megan McGuire v. Cory Cooper

952 F.3d 918 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 6, 2020

“Summary judgment ‘determinations are appealable when they resolve a dispute concerning an abstract issue of law relating to qualified immunity–typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly … Qualified immunity is a doctrine that “shields a government official from liability unless his conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Jennings v. Jones

479 F.3d 110 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 7, 2007

Prong Two: Whether the Law Was Clearly Established The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis asks "whether the constitutional right . . . was 'clearly established' at the time of the incident such … established' when assessing claims of qualified immunity" (quoting Medina v.