Case law

Clement v. Gomez

298 F.3d 898 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 6, 2002

Resolving the issue of qualified immunity involves a two-step inquiry. … Clearly Established Law The qualified immunity analysis requires us to further consider whether the rights of the prisoners in this case were clearly established at the time of *906 incident.

West Virginia Lottery v. A-1 Amusement, Inc.

807 S.E.2d 760 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 13, 2017

Therefore, even if the State purchases a policy of insurance, a state agency and its official may claim immunities under the common law, such as qualified immunity. 70 Pursuant to this analysis, qualified immunity is available … qualified immunity in this context.

Engblom v. Carey

572 F. Supp. 44 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 15, 1983

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … established” at the time of the events in question and therefore that the defendants are protected by a qualified immunity and entitled to summary judgment.

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.”

Roybal-Mack v. N.M. Dep't of Pub. Safety

286 F. Supp. 3d 1226 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 12, 2017

If the plaintiff fails to establish either part of the two-part inquiry, the court must grant the defendants qualified immunity. Id. … Whether Law Was Clearly Established The Court need not address whether the law clearly established as the second part of the qualified immunity analysis, having found that Defendants did not violate Plaintiff's constitutional

Stevenson v. Owens State Community College

562 F. Supp. 2d 965 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 25, 2008

The key inquiry in analyzing a claim of qualified immunity is whether the defendant’s alleged conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … As such, this Court finds that the Individual Defendants are protected by qualified immunity. IV.

Jacqueline Tuggle v. Tom Mangan, Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission

348 F.3d 714 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 6, 2003

In denying Man-gan’s qualified immunity defense, the district court stated the law was clearly established at the time Mangan acted that intentional sexual harassment by a person acting under color of state law violated the … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity generally shields state actors from civil liability if “their conduct does not violate 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.

Briaheen Thomas v. Tice

948 F.3d 133 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 15, 2020

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … As the Majority notes, qualified immunity does not shield a government official where she has “violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Reichle v.

Schaffrath on Behalf of RJJ v. Thomas

993 F. Supp. 842 · District Court, D. Utah · Jan 28, 1998

clearly established at the time of the conduct *847 at issue. … “Ordinarily, in order for the law to be clearly established, there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found' the law to be

Beauregard v. Olson

84 F.3d 1402 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 12, 1996

Pelletier, --- U.S. ----, ---- 116 S.Ct. 834, 842, 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996), to decide the core qualified immunity question of whether it was clearly established before Olson acted that he could not lawfully fire these … This case is not the exceptional case where the individual defendant is unentitled to qualified immunity: it was not clearly established at the time Olson acted that firing Plaintiffs was unlawful.

Douglas M. Jones v. Richard A. Heyman

888 F.2d 1328 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 22, 1989

The mayor also asserted that his decision to remove Jones was protected by the qualified immunity doctrine because the mayor did not violate Jones’ clearly established First Amendment rights. … Second, he contends he is entitled to qualified immunity for his discretionary decision to remove Jones from the meeting.

Ralph and Sharon Hughes v. City of North Olmsted

93 F.3d 238 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 20, 1996

The individual defendants respond that they are all entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … In the present case, the defendants should have been granted qualified immunity because there is no evidence that the investigation violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Ralph Walsh, Jr. v. Lisa Hodge

975 F.3d 475 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 15, 2020

Because Walsh’s deprivations of due process were not clearly established constitutional rights, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and RENDER judgment in favor of Defendants. … immunity analysis: was Walsh’s constitutional right clearly established?

Julian Betton v. David Belue

942 F.3d 184 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 5, 2019

Officer Belue appeals only the court’s denial of qualified immunity with respect to the excessive force claim. … The burden of establishing the affirmative defense of qualified immunity rests on the party seeking to invoke it. Id.

Larry Richardson v. Nathan Falk

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 6, 2026

clearly established. … Because Falk did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, he is entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Paul Frederick Lenea, Cross-Appellant v. Michael P. Lane, Cross-Appellees

882 F.2d 1171 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 11, 1989

clearly established in 1983. … that right was “clearly established” by 1983.

Blankenship v. Manchin

410 F. Supp. 2d 483 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jan 18, 2006

Clearly Established Law The question under this second and final step in the qualified immunity analysis is “whether a reasonable [official] could have believed [the challenged conduct] to be lawful, in light of clearly established … It is important to note that the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes not only when “the very action in question has previously been held unlawful,” but .also when “pre-existing law” makes the “unlawfulness

Wall-DeSousa v. Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles

691 F. App'x 584 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 2, 2017

(“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant plead *590 ing qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”). III. … This is because, to survive dismissal in this case, the Wall-DeSousas must additionally allege sufficient facts to overcome the second prong of qualified immunity, i.e., clearly established federal law.