Case law

Ortiz v. Torgenson

District Court, D. Utah · Apr 30, 2024

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officers from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory … Even when government officials violate the law, qualified immunity shields them from damages liability unless the violative nature of the particular conduct is clearly established.”

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

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.”

Cox v. Fischer

248 F. Supp. 3d 471 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2017

Qualified Immunity “Under 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 … The Court concludes that Officer Murphy is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. 1.

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

Roden v. Wright

646 So. 2d 605 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Aug 19, 1994

This burden is met by proof demonstrating that the defendant public official's actions 'violated clearly established constitutional law.' Zeigler [v. Jackson ], 716 F.2d [847] at 849 [11th Cir. 1983]. Accord, I.A. … Thus, in stating that "[i]t does not violate any clearly established constitutional principle for a politician . . . to write a letter to Gold Kist, Inc. encouraging the latter not to enter into an arrangement to place chicken

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.

Kindra O'Bryant v. DCP&P

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 16, 2026

If the specific right was not clearly established, the official is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. A. … established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Espanola Way Corp. v. Murray Meyerson

690 F.2d 827 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 1, 1982

Further, the defense of qualified immunity is unavailable to officials who, though otherwise covered, act with malice 1 or contrary to clearly established law. Procunier v. … Fifth, a conscious attempt to deprive property owners of property without due process of law clearly contravenes established law.

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

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.”

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.

Chico Scrap Metal, Inc. v. Raphael

830 F. Supp. 2d 966 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 23, 2011

The 11th Amendment does not bar this claim. c) Qualified Immunity Defendants finally argue that they are immune from suit in this instance because of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials sued in their individual capacity from monetary damages, unless their conduct violates “clearly established” law that would be known to a reasonable public officer

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

Cantrell v. Morris

849 N.E.2d 488 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 21, 2006

Kellogg also quoted the standard for qualified immunity as stated by the U.S. … Supreme Court: Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective reasonableness of his conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.”

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.