Case law

Asociación De Subscripción Conjunta Del Seguro De Responsabilidad Obligatorio v. Flores Galarza

484 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 1, 2007

Second Prong: Constitutional Right was “Clearly Established” at Time of Violation “The second question [of the qualified immunity analysis] deals with fair warning; it asks whether the law was clearly established at the time … The qualified immunity inquiry recognizes that “[i]t is not always evident at the time an official takes an action that a clearly established right is involved.

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.

Auburn Medical Center, Inc. v. Peters

953 F. Supp. 1518 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 12, 1996

as the plaintiff contends, because the Court finds that Smith is clearly immune from the plaintiffs RICO claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity. 5 Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary … The Hansen Court emphasized that the qualified immunity analysis is fact-specific: “When considering whether the law applicable to certain facts is clearly established, the facts of cases relied upon as precedent are important

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 .

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.

D.A.R. v. R.E.L.

272 So. 3d 1030 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Sep 7, 2018

This court has recognized the difference between absolute immunity, which defeats a suit at the outset, and qualified immunity, which depends on circumstances and motivations and often must be established by evidence at trial … are not always uniform in deciding whether absolute or qualified immunity applies."

Branch v. Tunnell

937 F.2d 1382 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 1991

On October 3, 1988, Tunnell moved to dismiss Branch’s suit on grounds of qualified immunity, arguing that under the objective qualified immunity standard established by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. … Because a defendant's entitlement to qualified immunity in a Bivens or § 1983 action alleging judicial deception turns on the ability of the plaintiff to establish that the defendant knowingly or recklessly misled the magistrate

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 .

Allen L. Fludd v. United States Secret Service Maurice Daugherty

771 F.2d 549 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 13, 1985

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

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.

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.

Ference v. Township of Hamilton

538 F. Supp. 2d 785 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 6, 2008

The privilege of qualified immunity, however, can be overcome when state officials violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wright v. … “To be clearly established for pur *799 poses of the qualified immunity analysis, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear such that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right

Navarro v. City of Riviera Beach

192 F. Supp. 3d 1353 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 29, 2016

qualified immunity should not apply because: (1) the officers violated a constitutional right; and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the incident.” … Even to the extent that facts exist capable of demonstrating a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and, thus, overcoming qualified immunity as to Sheriff Bradshaw in his individual capacity, amendment

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.

Danielle Ex Rel. Komando v. Adriazola

284 F. Supp. 2d 1368 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 4, 2003

However, individual government employees acting within the scope of their official duties enjoy the defense of qualified immunity unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Defendants further contend that, even if Plaintiff does state a claim under § 1983, that violation of these state rules was not clearly established, and, therefore, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

(PC) Reed v. Racklin

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 30, 2019

Qualified Immunity 4 Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983 if 5 “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Prunty, 108 F.3d 251, 14 254-55 (9th Cir. 1997) (in qualified immunity context, finding no clearly established right to be 15 free from feigned karate chops towards inmate’s body, including groin area).

Bibeau v. Pacific Northwest Research Foundation

188 F.3d 1105 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 19, 1999

Heller's assistant) contend that as government contractors that did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity and liability under section 1983. 7 Generally, the key question to be answered for purposes of qualified immunity is whether the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged acts.

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[.]”

Jerome Williams v. Jon Ozmint

716 F.3d 801 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 15, 2013

Qualified immunity extends to protect officials “who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry, 652 F.3d at 531 . … A qualified immunity inquiry involves two steps.

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).