Case law

Fenwick v. United States of America

926 F. Supp. 2d 201 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 1, 2013

Fenwick’s clearly established rights. The Court therefore does not find the defendants entitled to qualified immunity at this juncture. 1. … Clearly Established Right With respect to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, it was clearly established at the time of this incident that shooting a fleeing suspect who is not presently

Doores v. McNamara

476 F. Supp. 987 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Sep 21, 1979

Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 247 , 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1692 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90, 103 (1974) established the standard when a defendant is entitled to this qualified immunity: [A] qualified immunity is available to officers of the executive … However, the mere fact that the defendant must establish that he is entitled to this qualified immunity does not mean that he is not entitled to a directed verdict. In Dellums v.

Tejada Batista v. Fuentes Agostini

247 F. Supp. 2d 73 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 23, 2003

ANALYSIS Defendants generally argue that as a matter of law the case should be dismissed because they are shielded from liability pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability when they perform discretionary functions as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Hubert Arturo Acevedo v. Alex Diaz de la Portilla

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 26, 2026

The qualified immunity test is a familiar one. … We now turn to the second element of qualified immunity, and we ask whether Acevedo’s rights were clearly established.

Perry Center, Inc. v. Heitkamp

576 N.W.2d 505 · North Dakota Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1998

Questions of qualified immunity are usually ones of law for a court to decide. Wishnatsky . … Absolute immunity defeats a suit at the outset, while an official with qualified immunity must establish, his of her conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Quality Technology Co. v. Stone & Webster Engineering Co.

745 F. Supp. 1331 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jun 1, 1990

Qualified immunity standards are clearly set forth in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … Defendants “have qualified immunity unless plaintiff’s ‘rights were so clearly estab *1348 lished when the acts were committed that any officer in the defendant’s position, measured objectively, would have clearly understood

Glenn v. Washington County

661 F.3d 460 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 27, 2011

the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. … Smith, 394 F.3d at 703 (reversing district court’s grant of qualified immunity).

Cohn v. New Paltz Central School District

363 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 30, 2005

Even if the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, however, a defendant will still be entitled to qualified immunity if the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established … Defendant Derry is not entitled to qualified immunity for this claim. Case law has clearly established the “class of one” selective enforcement claim alleged in this action. Vill. of Willowbrook v.

Susan Esquillan, Defendant/third-Party v. The Health Care Insurance Company, Third-Party

222 F.3d 118 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 5, 2000

The district court then ruled that *120 even if the improper investigation did violate her constitutional rights, the defendants would nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity because those rights were not clearly established … Thus, all of the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for those acts. Furthermore, Ms.

(PC) McNeil v. Toor

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 2, 2024

Qualified Immunity 28 In the alternative, Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity because there 1 is not clearly established case law that provided Defendants … ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant's alleged 6 misconduct.”

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.

PJ Ex Rel. Jensen v. Wagner

603 F.3d 1182 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 5, 2010

The “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis ensures that governmental actors are given fair warning that their conduct is unconstitutional before they are held liable for damages based on that conduct … ’ claims of qualified immunity. 2.

Marvin v. Fitch

126 Nev. 168 · Nevada Supreme Court · May 27, 2010

Generally, qualified immunity, 5 rather than absolute immunity, is sufficient to protect nonjudicial officers in the performance of their duties, id. at 617 , 55 P.3d at 425 (quoting Burns v. … Qualified immunity may also provide immunity from suit so long as the defendant’s actions were not in violation of clearly established law. See Mitchell v.

Mocek v. City of Albuquerque

3 F. Supp. 3d 1002 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Feb 28, 2014

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualifíed Immunity Analysis. … The Supreme Court has clarified that the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity test is a very high burden for the plaintiff: “A Government official’s conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time

Chiu v. Plano Independent School District

260 F.3d 330 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 24, 2001

We apply a two-step analysis to determine whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity. “First, we must examine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established right.” … FIRST AMENDMENT ANALYSIS Under the first prong of our qualified immunity analysis, we must determine whether Plaintiffs have alleged a violation of a clearly established right. See Evans v.

Choice L. Causey Henretta Denise Bradley v. City of Bay City John May Thomas Pletzke, Joseph E. Doyle Eric Sporman Ken Souser

442 F.3d 524 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 29, 2006

“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … , and (2) whether that right was clearly established.” 2 Id.

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

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.

Outley v. Moir

District Court, D. Arizona · May 21, 2021

Then, when analyzing qualified immunity, a court must determine whether: 5 “(1) the facts adduced constitute the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) the 6 constitutional right was clearly established … App’x 811 (9th Cir. 2013) (granting qualified immunity to government officials who 11 included plaintiff’s juvenile records on a report disclosed to third parties because there was 12 no clearly established constitutional

Anela v. City of Wildwood

595 F. Supp. 511 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 7, 1984

The defendant next argues that immunity law developed in the § 1983 context entitles him to a qualified immunity. This argument, the court believes, has some merit. … It is difficult to say that this constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the events in question.