Case law

William Mariani-Giron v. Heriberto Acevedo-Ruiz, Etc.

877 F.2d 1114 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 23, 1989

A court must look to the “objective legal reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law,” to determine whether the doctrine of qualified immunity applies. Id. … Acevedo Ruiz argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of Mariani Giron’s discharge in March 1985, the law was not clearly established that political affiliation was not an appropriate requirement

Miller v. City of Nederland by and Through Wimer

977 F. Supp. 432 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Sep 8, 1997

To prevail on a qualified immunity defense, the defendant must show that he did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Because Smith and Hamilton have raised the defense of qualified immunity, Miller must show, as a threshold matter, that they violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Day v. City of Indianapolis

380 F. Supp. 3d 812 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 13, 2019

Qualified immunity shields public officials from civil liability for acts done in their official capacity, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights to which a reasonable … The law has clearly established this conduct as violative and therefore precludes the officers from qualified immunity.

Drogosch v. Metcalf

557 F.3d 372 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 25, 2009

Clearly established right For a right to be clearly established, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” … Drogosch has accordingly satisfied the “clearly established” prong of the qualified-immunity analysis. D.

Ginter v. Stallcup

641 F. Supp. 939 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 11, 1986

Knox’s claims of qualified immunity. Ms. Ginter has not brought the Court’s attention to any clearly established law which movants’ conduct on June 3, 1983, violated. The claims against Mr. Blasingame and Mr. … Where the plaintiff can point to no clearly established law that the federal agents violated, they will be entitled to qualified immunity, as discussed above, regardless of their subjective state of mind.

Hummel v. City of Carlisle

229 F. Supp. 2d 839 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 23, 2002

established right, qualified immunity cannot attach on summary judgment. 882 F.2d at 215-16 . … The ultimate, more particularized question in the qualified immunity context is whether Hummel had a clearly established right under the facts as he states them. This case falls into the realm of Brandenburg .

Long v. Norris

929 F.2d 1111 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 29, 1991

established" for purposes of qualified immunity. … established at the time of the searches for purposes of qualified immunity.

TUCKER v. ATWATER

303 Ga. 791 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Jun 4, 2018

The Court of Appeals held that the school officials were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established law. … established law entitles the school officials to qualified immunity.

Sheila T. Harper v. Lawrence County

584 F.3d 1030 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 7, 2009

on qualified immunity. … Were Harper’s rights clearly established at the time?

Lamont Shepard v. T. Quillen

840 F.3d 686 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 26, 2016

Whether Shepard’s right was clearly established Wise may nevertheless be entitled to qualified immunity if the right at issue was not “clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … We thus do not fault Shepard for failing to address the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis in his opening brief.

Boisseau v. Town of Walls

138 F. Supp. 3d 792 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Oct 8, 2015

The Fifth Circuit has described the basic qualified immunity standard as follows: “This court applies a two-step analysis to determine whether a defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity … Amendment and accordingly upheld the defendant’s qualified immunity defense.

Miles v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 500

347 F. Supp. 3d 626 · District Court, D. Kansas · Oct 16, 2018

Castillo is Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity Last, Ms. Castillo contends that she is entitled to qualified immunity. … A public official performing a discretionary function enjoys qualified immunity in a civil action for damages, provided her conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which

Menon v. Frinton

170 F. Supp. 2d 190 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 30, 2001

Summary judgment dismissing a claim based upon a defense of qualified immunity may be granted if the court finds that the “asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the evidence is such that, even when it is viewed … The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles public officials to freedom from suits for acts performed in their official capacity if “(1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it

Robert B. Brown v. Texas a & M University

804 F.2d 327 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 17, 1986

Perez In order to overcome Reynolds’ claim of qualified immunity, Brown must show that Reynolds’ conduct “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Forsyth, 105 S.Ct. at 2816 (“Unless plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”).

William J. Benson v. Robert H. Allphin

786 F.2d 268 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 11, 1986

Qualified Immunity As government officials performing discretionary functions, Allphin and Rummel are shielded from liability for civil damages in a § 1983 action unless their conduct violated “clearly established statutory … Although the Supreme Court has articulated the rule for qualified immunity, it has not fully explained what it means by the phrase “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.”

Zimmerman v. Spears

428 F. Supp. 759 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Jan 3, 1977

JUDICIAL IMMUNITY The Plaintiffs’ allegations concerning the Judicial Defendants and the record in SA-76-CA-152 clearly show that their actions were well within the scope of their judicial duties. … Even under this qualified good faith immunity, these defendants are immune from suit.

Barbosa v. Conlon

962 F. Supp. 2d 316 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 10, 2013

Qualifíed Immunity — In General “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “[T]he second, ‘clearly established’ step of the qualified immunity analysis ... in turn, has two aspects.” Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263, 269 (1st Cir.2009).

Haley v. City of Boston

677 F. Supp. 2d 379 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 31, 2009

Qualified immunity attaches to discretionary conduct of government officials that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier v.

Williamson v. Cox

952 F. Supp. 2d 176 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 9, 2013

was clearly established at the time an action occurred. . . .’”). … The qualified immunity analysis “‘turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.’” Youngbey v.

Vernon v. Deramus

District Court, N.D. Alabama · Dec 9, 2024

Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because a single incident cannot establish a pattern or practice and Plaintiffs have not shown a violation of a clearly established right. … Dicta is particularly unhelpful in qualified immunity cases where we seek to identify clearly established law.”).