Case law

Mission Consolidated Independent School District v. Garcia

55 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1065 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 29, 2012

in a plea to the jurisdiction. 32 We held in Garcia I that “the TCHRA clearly and unambiguously waives immunity” for suits brought against school districts under the TCHRA. 33 However, the Legislature has waived immunity … The District incorrectly contends that our opinion in Garcia I did not actually address the issue of whether the TCHRA clearly and unambiguously waives immunity for school districts.

Fields v. COUNTY OF BEAUFORT IN SOUTH CAROLINA

699 F. Supp. 2d 756 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Mar 22, 2010

Officials lose the protection of qualified immunity if it appears that (1) they violated a statutory or constitutional right of the plaintiff, and (2) the right was “clearly established” at the time of the acts complained … As previously set forth, the qualified immunity shield operates at two levels: (1) the particular right must be clearly established in the law; and (2) the manner in which this right applies to the actions of the official

Latson v. Clarke

249 F. Supp. 3d 838 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Apr 20, 2017

A court deciding the applicability of qualified immunity must determine “whether a constitutional violation occurred” and “whether the right violated was clearly established.” Tobey, 706 F.3d at 385 . … Where a plaintiff “(1) 'allege[s] a violation of a right (2) that is clearly established at the time of the violation,” a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds must be denied. Evans v.

Keith v. Koerner

707 F.3d 1185 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 12, 2013

was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … Koerner qualified immunity. -9- Nevertheless, because we affirm the denial of qualified immunity, we do not reach this issue.

John Entler v. Christine Gregoire

872 F.3d 1031 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 6, 2017

The magistrate judge also concluded that, regardless, Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity “because Entler’s rights were not clearly established at the time he was sanctioned.” … There remains the issue of qualified immunity. Appellees would not be entitled to prevail if the constitutional right violated “was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” City of San Francisco v.

Williams v. Ontario County Sheriff's Department

662 F. Supp. 2d 321 · District Court, W.D. New York · Sep 21, 2009

Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officials who perform discretionary functions from liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable prison … to qualified immunity.

Michael Gatto, as the Personal Representative of Michael Joseph Gatto v. City of Statesboro

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Oct 21, 2019

The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims, asserting, inter alia, that the City is entitled to sovereign immunity, that Starling is entitled to qualified or official immunity, and that no act or omission of … The trial court ruled that Starling was entitled to sovereign immunity; the trial court never addressed whether she was entitled to qualified immunity as asserted by the defendants.

Flores v. Morgan Hill Unified School District

324 F.3d 1130 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 8, 2003

The district court also held that the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was clearly established. Defendants filed this interlocutory appeal of the denial of qualified immunity. … Clearly Established Law Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity only if the law at the time of the alleged constitutional violation was not clearly established. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201-02, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Villarreal v. City of Laredo

94 F.4th 374 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 23, 2024

Under the normal standards of qualified immunity, no “clearly established law” placed the officers on notice of Villarreal’s First Amendment right not to be arrested. … Even those who argue for some version of qualified immunity nevertheless disavow the clearly-established- law requirement. See, e.g., Scott Keller, Qualified and Absolute Immunity at Common Law, 73 Stan. L.

Harold Wayne Enlow v. Tishomingo County, Mississippi, Jim Wall, in His Individual Capacity

962 F.2d 501 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 6, 1992

Whether a defendant asserting qualified immunity may be personally liable turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the defendant’s actions in light of clearly established law. Id. at 639 , 107 S.Ct. at 3038 . … s first inquiry — he has also set forth a violation of a clearly established Fourth Amendment right. We now address the second inquiry under Siegert— Wall’s entitlement to his qualified immunity defense.

Linda Denno, as Parent, Legal Guardian and Next Friend for Wayne Denno v. School Board of Volusia County, Florida Dennis Roberts, an Individual

218 F.3d 1267 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 20, 2000

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS Qualified immunity shields government officials from both suit and liability if their conduct violates no clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have … As indicated in our elaboration above of the qualified immunity standard, pre-exist-ing law must clearly establish the alleged constitutional right.

Fahirri Dannah v. City of Grand Rapids

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 29, 2026

The district court rejected the officers’ qualified-immunity defense, reasoning that a jury could find that they violated Dannah’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. … Page 4 Qualified immunity saves officers “the time, expense and risk of money-damages actions unless they violate clearly established constitutional rights.” Moore v.

Ronald C. Ayersman and Ronald C. "Mackey" Ayersman, Assistant State Fire Marshal v. Tammy S. Wratchford and Michael W. Wratchford and West Virginia State Fire Marshal's Office v. Tammy S. Wratchford and Michael W. Wratchford

West Virginia Supreme Court · May 20, 2022

rights that may be enforced via civil suits, so it cannot be a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right or law,” the violation of which can overcome qualified immunity. … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or laws . . . or are otherwise fraudulent, malicious, or oppressive[.]”

Gomez v. Lozano

839 F. Supp. 2d 1309 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 13, 2012

Qualified immunity does not apply where (1) the facts show a constitutional-rights violation, and (2) the law clearly established that right at the time the official violated it. See Pearson v. … Therefore, qualified immunity attaches to Mr. Lozano. Even if I independently considered the clearly established-law issue, I would hold that qualified immunity attaches.

Evenstad v. Herberg

994 F. Supp. 2d 995 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jan 10, 2014

A government actor is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate “clearly established” law at the time. 6 Defendants argue that the infliction of de minimis injury did not violate clearly established law … Defendants raise qualified immunity as a defense to all of Evenstad’s claims, but as the laws relevant to his other surviving claims were clearly established in 2006 (e.g., the right to be free from retaliation for the exercise

Reynolds v. Smythe

418 F. Supp. 2d 724 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2006

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has enunciated the qualified immunity inquiry as follows: “First, we must determine whether the defendants violated ‘clearly established’ rights. … Saucier instructs lower courts to examine whether a constitutional right was clearly established in the second-prong of a two-prong qualified immunity inquiry, whereas Harvey examines whether defendants violated a clearly

Stack v. Killian

96 F.3d 159 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 16, 1996

Officials who perform discretionary functions are generally entitled to qualified immunity from individual liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The question of whether an official is protected by qualified immunity 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

DeAnzona v. City & County of Denver

222 F.3d 1229 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 2, 2000

If the defendant argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity under the plaintiff's version of the facts because the plaintiff has not demonstrated a violation of clearly established law, this Court may properly exercise … We hold that the district court erred by denying Brooks's motion for qualified immunity. DeAnzona had the burden of proving with specificity how Brooks violated Redd's clearly established right. See Tonkovich v.

Youngs v. Fusaro

179 F. Supp. 3d 198 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 31, 2016

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert, as a defense to both of Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims, that they are shielded from the lawsuit by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials whose conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Martel v.

Fletcher v. Town of Clinton

196 F.3d 41 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 8, 1999

Qualified immunity analysis is two-pronged. "First, the court must establish whether the constitutional right asserted by the plaintiff was 'clearly established' at the time of the alleged violation." St. … The charge of escape did not result in a violation of her clearly established constitutional rights, and the officers are, therefore, protected by qualified immunity. C.