Case law

Charles D. Cronen v. Texas Department of Human Services, Jean Roberts, Ann Valdez-Haines, Donna L. Burns, Socorro Alonzo, and the State of Texas

977 F.2d 934 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 23, 1992

granted qualified immunity from damage suits. … If defendants refused to follow well-established federal regulations, they would violate clearly established rights.

Moran v. Clarke

359 F.3d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 26, 2004

Id. 9 Appellants assert that the law was not clearly established. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), the fact remains that qualified immunity is reserved for state officials whose conduct is objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law at

Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt

276 F.3d 1125 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 11, 2002

The district court granted summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds in favor of all individual defendants except for Lewis and Philip. … Analysis Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials ... generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

MOLINELLI-FREYTES v. University of Puerto Rico

792 F. Supp. 2d 150 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Apr 5, 2010

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The “doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from [personal] liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … This is to say that the Court must find that “[p]ublic officials are ... entitled to qualified immunity unless the facts establish that their conduct violated a constitutional [or federal statutory] right that was clearly

Moreta-Ramirez v. Lemert

233 F. Supp. 2d 286 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Nov 26, 2002

Interpreting Harlow , the First Circuit has established a three-part inquiry to determine whether or not the doctrine of qualified immunity applies in a given situation. … as to strip the defendant of his or her qualified immunity.

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.

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

Ted P. Campbell v. Ernest Mercer, as Mayor of Elmore City, and as an Individual

926 F.2d 990 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 26, 1991

The central issue in connection with defendant Mercer’s claim of qualified immunity is whether it was clearly established law in 1987 that plaintiff Campbell had a constitutional right to a post-termination hearing. … Also, the law was not clearly established that plaintiff had a constitutional right to a post-termination hearing.

Richard Pike v. J. Hester

891 F.3d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 6, 2018

Clearly Established Law The conclusion that Hester violated Pike’s constitutional rights does not end our qualified immunity inquiry. We must also ask whether Hester’s conduct violated clearly established law. … If the right was not clearly established, Hester is entitled to qualified immunity.

Morse v. Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety Department of State Police

123 F. Supp. 3d 179 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 18, 2015

qualified immunity. … Therefore, to overcome Defendants’ qualified immunity defense, Plaintiffs must show that their rights were “clearly established” at the time of the violation.

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.

Harris v. Morales

231 F. App'x 773 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 2, 2007

right and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s unlawful conduct.” … The district court did not fully consider qualified immunity; it did not address whether the applicable constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of Captain Gore’s actions.

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

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.

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.”

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

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.

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

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.”