Case law

Jensen v. Brown

131 F.4th 677 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 10, 2025

The Administrators were not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established at the time that a professor has a right to * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. … Because “it is not possible to determine at this stage as a matter of law that [Jensen] has not alleged a violation of clearly established law,” the Administrators are not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage

Kinlocke v. Benton

257 F. Supp. 3d 1368 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 19, 2017

Next, a plaintiff seeking to overcome a defendant’s qualified' immunity privilege must show that (1) the state actor violated plaintiffs constitutional or statutory rights, and (2) those rights were clearly established at … In sum, when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Kinlocke, there are sufficient allegations to show that Fox violated Kin-locke’s clearly established right to medical care, and hence Fox is not entitled to qualified

Weaver v. Brenner

40 F.3d 527 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 26, 1994

Clearly Established Right The threshold issue in deciding whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity is, as noted, whether the federal right was clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred … relevant rights to have been clearly established in 1989 is affirmed.

Sammy Ussery v. Mansfield

786 F.3d 332 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 19, 2015

As the parties agree, the law clearly established at the time of the extraction governs the entitlement to qualified immunity here. Further, they agree that Norman v. … summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity would be entirely unreviewable if the defendant officers conceded that Ussery’s version of the facts would establish that the officers violated clearly established law.

C.A. v. Lowndes County Department of Family & Children Services

93 F. Supp. 2d 744 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Mar 13, 2000

The first inquiry in examining a defense of qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff has alleged “the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Siegert v. … As such, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right to be free from state-created dangers was not, and is not, clearly established in this jurisdiction.

Ram v. Rubin

118 F.3d 1306 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 2, 1997

under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … When an official asserts qualified immunity, we apply a two-part analysis: “1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established?

Christina Romero v. Amanda Brown

937 F.3d 514 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 29, 2019

The court held that a violation of the right to family integrity was not clearly established in the context of a social worker investigation, entitling both Brown and Mouton to qualified immunity. … Those allegations do not establish that the officers violated clearly established law.

Chrissy F., by Her Next Friend and Guardian Ad Litem Donna Medley v. Mississippi Department of Public Welfare

925 F.2d 844 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 8, 1991

defendant violated clearly established law. … to qualified immunity.

Bevill v. Wheeler

103 F.4th 363 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 30, 2024

The doctrine of qualified immunity “shields public officials sued in their individual capacities ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … As noted above, once an official asserts the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that “(1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time

Wray v. Painter

791 F. Supp. 2d 419 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2011

Qualified Immunity In his Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant asserts he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established law of which a reasonable officer in his position would have known … The Right Was Clearly Established at the Time of the Violation Under the second prong of the qualified immunity test, the Court must determine whether the right violated was clearly established at the time of the violation

Tonkovich v. Kansas Board of Regents

159 F.3d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 26, 1998

II, doc. 7 at 679 (Dean Jerry entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate clearly established constitutional rights); see also id. vol. … Pages and pages of facts are no substitute for citations to clearly established law. Nor can they meet Professor Tonkovich’s burden on qualified immunity.

Skatemore, Inc. v. Gretchen Whitmer

40 F.4th 727 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 19, 2022

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Assuming Plaintiffs alleged an unconstitutional taking, they have failed to show that the alleged constitutional violation was clearly established.5 The Supreme Court has cautioned courts “not to define clearly established

Aviles v. Department of the Army

666 F. Supp. 2d 224 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 8, 2009

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 . … violated that clearly established constitutional right.”

Freeman v. Blair

793 F.2d 166 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 4, 1986

The decisions to inspect without a warrant clearly were functions for which Blair and Massa are not entitled to absolute immunity nor, as we conclude below, were the decisions reasonable under clearly established law. … Our task then will be to determine whether the law in the areas implicated in those claims was clearly established at the time of the actions here at issue and thus whether the state officials’ qualified immunity defenses

Ziemba v. Armstrong

433 F. Supp. 2d 248 · District Court, D. Connecticut · May 17, 2006

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The qualified immunity inquiry requires the court to ask, first, whether the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right. Saucier v. … Qualified Immunity Argument For the reasons stated in Part II, supra, the court finds that Mangiafico is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Villarreal v. City of Laredo

44 F.4th 363 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 12, 2022

The district court dismissed her First Amendment infringement claim against various officials on qualified immunity grounds, finding that any violation was not clearly established at the time. … of clearly established law.

Rancho del Oso Pardo, Inc. v. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 21, 2020

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … right was clearly established.

Nolin v. Town of Springville

45 F. Supp. 2d 894 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Mar 22, 1999

“For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all *907 reasonable … In Lewis , the Supreme Court clarified the rationale behind resolving the substantive issues in a qualified immunity case before addressing the question of whether the law was clearly established at the time of the violation

Ferguson v. Leiter

220 F. Supp. 2d 875 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 18, 2002

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Once a qualified immunity defense is raised, the “plaintiff is obliged to present facts which if true would constitute a violation of clearly established law.” Dominque v.

Conlogue v. Hamilton

906 F.3d 150 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 11, 2018

officials who act incompetently or in disregard of clearly established legal principles. … Qualified immunity inoculates government officials from civil liability based on their discretionary actions and decisions which, although injurious, "do[] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights