Case law

Garza v. Escobar

386 F. Supp. 3d 794 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 30, 2019

to qualified immunity if Plaintiff had stated a claim. b. … Texas , 65 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 1995) (finding qualified immunity appropriate because it was not clearly established whether the political patronage exception applied to investigators in district attorney's offices or sufficiently

Terry Lee Passmore Swann v. Southern Health

388 F.3d 834 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 21, 2004

The parties agree that as a private entity, SHP is not entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense. … This is particularly true in cases involving qualified immunity, where we must determine whether a defendant’s actions violated a clearly established right. 132 F3d. at 1367 (emphasis added) (citations omitted

Davis v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma

380 F. Supp. 3d 1163 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 31, 2019

Qualified Immunity Sergeant Wollmershauser asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … clearly established under the second prong.

Adams v. May

903 F. Supp. 2d 433 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Oct 19, 2012

qualified immunity because his actions were objectively reasonable in light of the information available to him and the law that was clearly established at the time of his actions. … May is entitled to qualified immunity regarding his actions of applying pepper spray. 2.

Shipp v. McMahon

199 F.3d 256 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 7, 2000

’s assertion of qualified immunity. … Thus, courts engage in a two-step analysis to address claims of qualified immunity. *262 First, to show that a right is clearly established, the plaintiff does not have to refer to precedent that is directly on point, or

Marcello v. Maine

489 F. Supp. 2d 70 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 6, 2007

The First Circuit’s three-step approach to qualified immunity claims asks: (I) whether the claimant has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right; (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time … The second step of the qualified immunity analysis “deals with fair warning; it asks whether the law was clearly established at the time of the constitutional violation.”

Henry E. Parrish Yvonne L. Parrish v. Donald Mallinger Richard Larkin Crispus Nix

133 F.3d 612 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 7, 1998

Qualified immunity shields prison officials from damage liability unless they “violate clearly es tablished statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Whether a broad constitutional right such as due process is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes is a particularized inquiry: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official

Crawford v. Columbus State Community College

196 F. Supp. 3d 766 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 11, 2016

Qualified Immunity The defendants’ qualified-immunity argument similarly lacks merit. 3 Defendants argue that because there was no “clearly established law supporting Crawford’s attempt to assert an age discrimination claim … Accordingly, the Court will only address the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis — whether that right was "clearly established.”

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.

Rockwood v. Shoen

145 F. Supp. 3d 718 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 6, 2015

Defendants argue that they are entitled to judgment on this claim on the ground of qualified immunity. … Courts generally use a two-step analysis to address the potential applicability of qualified immunity.

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

Williams v. Brown

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 4, 2022

Defendant Gulick argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff has not stated a constitutional deprivation and, even assuming that he did, the implicated right was not clearly established. … Qualified immunity requires a two-pronged analysis: “whether the plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for violation of a constitutional or statutory right and whether the right was clearly established at the time of

S.P. v. City of Takoma Park

134 F.3d 260 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 15, 1998

Thus, to defeat a qualified immunity defense, Peller must show that the right allegedly violated was “clearly established” in more than just a general sense. … to qualified immunity.

Dallas Independent School District v. Finlan

27 S.W.3d 220 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Oct 3, 2000

Qualified Immunity Analysis Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, which shields them from liability for civil damages, if “their conduct does not violate … Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue.

Curley v. Klem

298 F.3d 271 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 2, 2002

If a court concludes that an officer's conduct did violate a clearly established constItutional right, then it must deny him the ~rotection afforded by qualified immunity. See id. at 2156-57. … immunity issues early in the litigation is in tension with the reality that factual disputes often need to be resolved before determining whether the defendant's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right

Opinion Number

Louisiana Attorney General Reports · Sep 13, 2002

The defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the beginning of discovery if the plaintiff's allegations do not state a claim of violation of clearly established law. Harlow v. … Further, the defendants have clearly carried their burden of pleading qualified immunity.

Gordon v. Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas

168 F. Supp. 3d 1148 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 10, 2016

The individual defendants 7 contend they are enti- *1156 tied to qualified immunity from Gordon’s § 1983 and § 1985 claims 8 because the conduct alleged fails to state a violation of a clearly established federal right of … But the former UALR employees — Norwood and Peterson— are also entitled to qualified immunity if Gordon fails to allege the deprivation of a constitutional right or the right was not clearly established.

Myers v. City of Fort Wayne, Ind.

729 F. Supp. 625 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 2, 1990

There is no qualified immunity if the defendant violated a clearly established and well litigated general proposition in which the case at hand merely presents a new wrinkle. LeClair v. … An official “would be entitled to qualified immunity if, at the time he acted, the law did not clearly establish that [the official] was prevented from discharging someone holding this particular position.” Wrigley v.

Keating v. University of South Dakota

980 F. Supp. 2d 1137 · District Court, D. South Dakota · Sep 30, 2013

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, state actors are protected from civil liability when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … The second step in the qualified immunity inquiry is to determine whether Keating’s free speech right was clearly established at the time his contract was not renewed. See Sexton, 210 F.3d at 910.

Emmanuel v. King County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 21, 2020

Homchick’s failure to identify a protected liberty or property interest or an abuse of process also entitles Defendants to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. … point to facts that support a violation of a clearly established constitutional right) 22 (discussing Saucier v.