Case law

Wullschleger v. Peters

28 F. Supp. 2d 549 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Nov 20, 1998

a qualified immunity defense if they prove that their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Qualified immunity is a question of law.

Rodriguez v. Laredo Independent School District

82 F. Supp. 2d 679 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 2, 2000

Superintendent Cruz CV Qualified Immunity .In Harlow v. … ’s actions did not violate ... clearly established First Amendment rights.”).

George Trammell v. Kevin Fruge

868 F.3d 332 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 17, 2017

Officers Fruge, Garza, Ingles, and Neveu Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Qualified immunity as to this claim is thus appropriate. .

Sellers ex rel. Sellers v. Baer

28 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 8, 1994

We hold that the conduct of the officers did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would have known, and the officers therefore are entitled to qualified immunity. C. … Accordingly, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because even the right broadly asserted in this case was not clearly established in 1986. .

Nibbs v. Roberts

31 V.I. 196 · District Court, Virgin Islands · Feb 8, 1995

light of clearly established law and the information the ... officer[] possessed. … Although appellant never expressly raised the defense of qualified immunity in his answer to the complaint, we nevertheless discuss generally the parameters of the defense since the trial court instructed the jury on qualified

Dorsey v. Wallace

134 F. Supp. 2d 1364 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Oct 17, 2000

In doing so, the plaintiffs cannot discharge their burden of showing that a right is clearly established by referring to general rules and abstract rights in order to strip the officers of their qualified immunity. … To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiffs must show that: (1) the officers violated a federal constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Santamorena v.

Wilkerson v. State

16 Brief Times Rptr. 394 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 1992

The plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was “clearly established.” … Hence, we find no basis justifying penetration of the shield of qualified immunity afforded to these defendants. *1127 While the question of qualified immunity generally turns on objective factors, Harlow does not preclude

Robinson v. City and County of Denver

39 F. Supp. 2d 1257 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 26, 1999

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability under section 1983 where their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Was the Constitutional Right Clearly Established?

Rosario Rivera v. Aqueduct & Sewer Authority

472 F. Supp. 2d 165 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 31, 2007

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Second, these rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged putative violation. See Crawford-El v.

Gonzalez v. City of Phoenix

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 8, 2026

Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, we examine whether the officers’ constitutional violation was clearly established. … So the clearly established prong of qualified immunity must be analyzed officer by officer. The Ninth Circuit has struggled to apply clearly established law properly in the past. See Kisela v.

Mitchell Alicea v. Aubrey Thomas

815 F.3d 283 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 1, 2016

Grant of Qualified Immunity Improper Alicea further argues that the district court erred in grant- ing qualified immunity to both officers. … The doctrine of qual- ified immunity protects government officials from liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statu- tory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Battiste v. Rojeski

257 F. Supp. 2d 957 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · May 12, 2003

To determine the issue of qualified immunity, I must determine first, whether the officer’s alleged conduct violated a constitutional right; and if so, whether that right was clearly established. Saucier v. … Even if a right is clearly established, defendants are still entitled to qualified immunity if their actions were reasonable. See Anderson v.

McClendon v. May

37 F. Supp. 2d 1371 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Feb 3, 1999

James, 157 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir.1998) establishes the current test for qualified immunity in the Eleventh Circuit. … Finally, an unofficial opinion of a state attorney general, even if it had been issued before the conduct occurred, would not constitute clearly established law for qualified immunity purposes.

Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc.

624 So. 2d 1239 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Aug 31, 1993

forth criteria for application of the qualified immunity. … conditions. [7] Had the legislature of this state envisioned that there is but one criteria for the application of the qualified immunity, the language of the statute would have clearly reflected this intent.

Lee v. Sandberg

136 F.3d 94 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 19, 1997

Even if a clearly established statutory or constitutional right is violated, qualified immunity is nonetheless a defense if the officers’ unlawful actions were objectively reasonable “as measured by reference to clearly established … Therefore, the State Troopers are not entitled to summary judgment under the “clearly established right” prong of the qualified immunity standard.

Ontiveros v. City of Rosenberg, Tex.

564 F.3d 379 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 30, 2009

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. … In order to evaluate the “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity test, the court must ask whether, at the time of the incident, the law clearly established that such conduct would violate the right.

Brenda Albert v. City of Wheeling

238 W. Va. 129 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Oct 27, 2016

Therefore, unless there is a bona fide dispute as to the foundational or historical facts that underlie the immunity determination, the ultimate questions of statutory or qualified immunity are ripe for summary disposition … To decide otherwise would risk further erosion of “well-established common law and statutory immunities which are vital to the proper functioning] of government.”

Frye v. Hodges

839 F. Supp. 2d 843 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Dec 30, 2011

“Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal-capacity liability for civil damages under § 1983, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … To overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff in a § 1983 case must show that the defendant’s action deprived the plaintiff of a protected constitutional right and that the right was so clearly established at the

Jane Doe v. Gayle Bowles Richard Kemp Ronald Stratton

254 F.3d 617 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 19, 2001

The Sixth Circuit has explained that in order for a court to deny qualified immunity to a § 1983 defendant, the plaintiff “must establish that [defendant’s] conduct violated a federal right so clearly established that any … Provided that there are no disputed issues of material fact precluding jurisdiction, qualified immunity must be granted by this court if, as a matter of law, defendants’ conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional

Pritchard v. Arvon

186 W. Va. 445 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1991

Such employee immunity is consistent generally with the political subdivision’s qualified immunity, and the employee immunity is reasonable in scope because the Act imposes employee liability for tort damages proximately … Clearly, the Act is reasonable in furthering the purpose for which it was enacted.