Case law

Estate of Adkins , by and through Adkins v. County of San Diego

384 F. Supp. 3d 1195 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 7, 2019

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that officers Vianzon and Perine are entitled to qualified immunity. (Doc. No. 52-1 at 14-17.) Plaintiff argues that the officers' actions violated clearly established law. (Doc. … Moreover, with respect to Beaver , the Court may "look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes." Boyd v.

Staco v. Miami-Dade County

536 F. Supp. 2d 1301 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 26, 2008

This heightened pleading standard is important because the court in a qualified immunity case must determine whether the individual defendant’s actions violated a “clearly established” constitutional right. Id. … The affirmative defense of qualified 'immunity protects public actors from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Randall McElhaney v. Dustin Williams

81 F.4th 550 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 25, 2023

Because today’s appeal arises from the successful assertion of qualified immunity, we must modify our inquiry. Qualified immunity shields officials from trial “unless their actions violate clearly established rights.” … Accordingly, McElhaney has satisfied the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity inquiry.

Rovira Rivera v. Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority

364 F. Supp. 2d 154 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Apr 5, 2005

Qualified Immunity Defendants’ last argument is that their conduct is protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity because it was 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

Tidik v. Ritsema

938 F. Supp. 416 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 12, 1996

Their duties clearly qualify as adjudicative or prosecutorial. … To overcome a claim of qualified immunity under section 1983, the plaintiff must show a violation of a constitutionally protected right, and that the protected right is so clearly established that “a reasonable official would

Pena v. Deprisco

432 F.3d 98 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 9, 2005

Qualified Immunity: Was the Constitutional Right Clearly Established? … Although it is a close question, we think that the substantive due process violation that the plaintiffs allege here was not clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Miguel A. Figueroa-Rodriguez v. Jorge L. Aquino, Etc.

863 F.2d 1037 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 9, 1988

See DeAbadia, 792 F.2d at 1193 (“the very fact that there is a reasonable dispute means that, from the standpoint of qualified immunity, the law was not clearly established in plaintiff’s favor”). … Given this focus, Aquino was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in January 1985 that political affiliation was not an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the job of

Michael Mockeridge v. Harry Harvey

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 11, 2025

We can thus “hear interlocutory appeals considering the legal question of qualified immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law.” Moldowan v. … was clearly established at the time.”

Casteel v. Pieschek

3 F.3d 1050 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 23, 1993

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against suits from damages unless their' conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … To determine the applicability of qualified immunity, the defendants’ actions must be compared to what a reasonable official would believe was required in light of the clearly established legal rules regarding county jail

Beier v. Lewiston, City Of

354 F.3d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 14, 2004

The Supreme Court reasoned that the consequences of such an argument would be "intolerable," because the qualified immunity right would be easily defeated as long as the complaint alleges violation of one clearly established … Clearly Established Right 43 " `[C]learly established' for purposes of qualified immunity means that `[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing

Petro Rentals, Inc. et al. v. The City of Auburn, New York, et al.

District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 13, 2026

Related to § 1983’s “personal involvement” requirement is the affirma- tive defense of qualified immunity, which shields individual defendants from liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), to defeat qualified immunity a plaintiff show that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right; (2) that was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.

McGinnis v. District of Columbia

65 F. Supp. 3d 203 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 28, 2014

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity “‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Butera v. … “Clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand what he is doing violates that right.” Shaw, 944 F.

Washington Square Post 1212 American Legion v. Maduro

907 F.2d 1288 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 28, 1990

a warrantless entry, or closed to non-Post members, in which case it was clearly established that a warrant was necessary. … DISCUSSION Qualified immunity has long shielded government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or con *1291 stitutional

Whittington v. Maxwell

455 F. App'x 450 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 22, 2011

Did Maxwell act unreasonably in the light of clearly established law? … We now turn to the second inquiry in the qualified immunity analysis— whether Maxwell acted in an objectively unreasonable manner in the light of clearly established law.

Krinitt v. Idaho Department of Fish & Game

162 Idaho 425 · Idaho Supreme Court · Jul 11, 2017

Krinitt opposed the motion, arguing: (1) IDFG was not Perry’s statutory employer and therefore did not qualify for statutory immunity; and (2) even if IDFG was Perry’s statutory employer, IDFG had waived its statutory immunity … Here, IDFG qualifies as a category one statutory employer of Perry. The “Service Level Agreement” between IDFG and the DOI clearly shows IDFG contracted with the DOI to secure aviation services.

Stephens v. Hamilton County Jobs & Family Services

46 F. Supp. 3d 754 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 2, 2014

Qualified immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The Sixth Circuit explained further: To overcome an officer’s entitlement to qualified immunity, however, a plaintiff must establish: (1) a substantial showing that the defendant stated a deliberate falsehood or showed reckless

Andre Guite v. James Wright Steven James Lashomb

147 F.3d 747 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 26, 1998

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity. … First, they appeal the district court’s denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Dees v. Vendel

856 F. Supp. 1531 · District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 27, 1994

clearly established when the violation occurred.” … with clearly established law.

Conner v. Tate

130 F. Supp. 2d 1370 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Feb 9, 2001

In Lassiter , the Eleventh Circuit held that for a law to be clearly established in the qualified immunity context, “preexisting law must dictate, that is truly compel (not just suggest or allow or raise a question about) … as clearly established law.

Tubar v. Clift

286 F. App'x 348 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 11, 2008

Qualified immunity protects government officials acting in their official capacities from civil liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights of which a “reasonable” official … In Saucier, the Supreme Court imposed a specific, sequential analysis for determining whether qualified immunity is warranted.