Case law

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.

Arledge v. Sherrill

738 So. 2d 1215 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Aug 18, 1999

Additionally, a qualified immunity generally applies to most acts of government officials. 2 Id. In Harlow v. … [[Image here]] It should not be surprising, therefore, that our cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must be “clearly established” in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense

William Darnell v. Col. John H. Ford

903 F.2d 556 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 22, 1990

The court reasoned that this claim was not “clearly established” in the law, and therefore Ford was protected under the doctrine of qualified immunity. The Patrol reinstated Darnell to the rank of Captain. … Whether qualified immunity should be applied in this case depends on whether the law was clearly established at the time the action occurred. The trial court should make this determination.

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

Baker v. Chaplin

497 N.W.2d 314 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · May 11, 1993

Under this objective standard, officials are entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Thus, a government official sued for his or her actions in the line of duty is entitled to immunity from suit if a reasonable official could have believed that his or her actions were lawful, in light of clearly established

Cassiopia Rhoads v. Erik Riddell

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 2, 2026

Thus, if the violation of the Eighth Amendment standard was clearly established in 2019, then Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. See Mays v. … Because it was clearly established that the Constitution required Defendants to do something, the Court correctly affirms the denial of qualified immunity.

MILLER v. GOGGIN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2024

purposes of qualified immunity.” … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of

Alicia T. v. County of Los Angeles

222 Cal. App. 3d 869 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 23, 1990

The County insists the law clearly provides absolute immunity for the conduct in issue here. “Qualified or ‘good faith’ immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded by a defendant official. [Citation.]” … “Qualified immunity shields only that conduct not violative of clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Franklin v. Fox

107 F. Supp. 2d 1154 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 17, 2000

THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY MOTIONS Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established … “Determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity ‘requires a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established?

Delgado v. Miami-Dade County

456 F. Supp. 2d 1234 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 9, 2006

For a right to be “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes, previous case law must have developed it in a concrete factual context so as to make it obvious to a reasonable government actor that his actions violate … The Court finds that Officer David Riley is entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

Shqeirat v. U.S. Airways Group, Inc.

645 F. Supp. 2d 765 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jul 24, 2009

Qualified Immunity: Whether Clearly Established The right not to be arrested unless there is probable cause is clearly established. See Goff v. Bise, 173 F.3d 1068 , 1072 (8th Cir.1999); see also Walker v. … Qualified Immunity The MAC Defendants are deprived of qualified immunity if they violated the right not to be arrested without arguable *785 probable cause or, even if they did, that right was not clearly established.

April Myrick v. Fulton County, Georgia

69 F.4th 1277 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 7, 2023

That means that if a defendant raises the affirma- tive defense of qualified immunity, the district court must dismiss any claims that do not allege a violation of clearly established law. … Qualified immunity “shields a government official from lia- bility unless he violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitu- tional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Wilkins v. DeReyes

528 F.3d 790 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 13, 2008

Qualified Immunity Turning to Plaintiffs’ malicious prosecution claim, we agree with the district court that the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Clearly Established We now turn to whether the law regarding the alleged constitutional violation was clearly established. If it was not, qualified immunity applies.

Chipman v. City of Florence

866 F. Supp. 332 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Oct 12, 1994

After reviewing the parties’ briefs and conducting oral argument, this court concluded that the defendant law enforcement officers had not violated clearly established law and were, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity … As the constitutional rights which the defendant law enforcement officers allegedly violated in this ease are not clearly established, those defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Bernard Coady v. Russell Steil

187 F.3d 727 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 9, 1999

immunity because, if the plaintiff had a constitutional right, it was not clearly established on March 18, 1995. … If Steil violated a clearly established constitutional right “of which a reasonable person would have known,” then he may not claim qualified *734 immunity from suit. See Harlow v.

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.

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.

Blue v. Koren

72 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 26, 1995

Circuit in Martin, 812 F.2d at 1432 , “[t]he ‘clearly established law' and ‘objective reasonableness’ facets of current qualified immunity doctrine tug in opposite directions where, as here, the ‘clearly established law' … When such a motion is based on assertion of qualified immunity, the first issue is whether a clearly established right is at stake. See Siegert, 500 U.S. at 232 , 111 S.Ct. at 1793 .

Metlin v. Palastra

729 F.2d 353 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 9, 1984

After finding appellate jurisdiction over the denial of the officer’s claim of absolute immunity, we exercise pendent jurisdiction over his qualified immunity claim and conclude that the Army officer is entitled to qualified … Unless the ... plaintiff can establish that the defendant officials have violated clearly established law, the claim for damages must be dismissed.” Sampson v. King, 693 F.2d 566, 570 (5th Cir.1982).