Case law

Starlight Sugar, Inc. v. Soto

253 F.3d 137 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 11, 2001

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1981), the district court identified a two-part test for determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity: (1) whether the law was clearly established at the time the action was … When determining whether a constitutional right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, state,4 as well as federal, decisions can be considered. See Cinelli v.

Chance v. Coquille Indian Tribe

327 Or. 318 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1998

Defendants deny that the *322 contract or any other legal document of the Tribe contains anything that qualifies as a waiver of sovereign immunity. … Defendants argue that the quoted contract provision is incomprehensible and cannot qualify as an unequivocal waiver of immunity.

Herman v. City of Tucson

197 Ariz. 430 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Nov 23, 1999

In defense, the City asserted qualified immunity under the recreational use statute. … To conclusively establish recreational user status based solely on the City’s grant of permission to all persons to enter a park, the Hermans argue, would result in “a ‘blanket immunity’ that covers everyone in the world,

Jeremy Nelson v. County of Wright James R. Hudek

162 F.3d 986 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 10, 1998

Government officials performing discretionary tasks are entitled to qualified immunity unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The standard was clearly established. 5 Whether Hudek is entitled to qualified immunity must be examined from the perspective of the situation as he understood it at the time. Anderson v.

Hudson v. Hall

231 F.3d 1289 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 9, 2000

violated clearly established law." … clearly established law.

Burgess v. Fischer

890 F. Supp. 2d 845 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 4, 2012

Qualified immunity protects state officials so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Dickerson v. … Qualified immunity includes a two-step analysis: (1) considering the allegations in a light most favorable to the party injured, a constitutional right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was clearly established

Sterrett v. Cowan

85 F. Supp. 3d 916 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 4, 2015

Clearly Established Defendants argue that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity since they did not violate Sterrett’s constitutional rights and that the rights alleged and procedures sought by Sterrett are not “clearly … In response, Sterrett argues that the rights he asserts, are clearly established and that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Kurtz v. Denniston

872 F. Supp. 631 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Dec 19, 1994

Delo, 999 F.2d 364, 366 (8th Cir.1993) (first step in qualified immunity analysis was determination of whether conduct violated any clearly established right). … special religious diet is clearly established.

VINAGRO v. Reitsma

260 F. Supp. 2d 425 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · May 6, 2003

Qualified Immunity Generally, “[qualified immunity shields government officials wielding discretionary powers ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … A qualified immunity defense is only available to a defendant who could not have been reasonably expected to know that he was violating a clearly established constitutional right. See Amsden, 904 F.2d at 752 .

Brinston v. Dunn

928 F. Supp. 669 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Apr 22, 1996

And finally, Dunn maintains that she is entitled to qualified immunity, in any event, since plaintiffs claimed First Amendment right was not- clearly established at the time his employment was terminated. … However, “[government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless their conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Herbert Liverman v. City of Petersburg

844 F.3d 400 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 15, 2016

contours of protected speech in this area were not clearly established. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry v.

Trujillo v. Board of Education of the Albuquerque Public Schools

377 F. Supp. 2d 977 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 17, 2004

LAW ON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … SECOND PRONG OF THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ANALYSIS: THE LAW MUST BE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED. Whether the law was clearly established at the time the claim arose is a legal issue for the court. See Elder v.

James Meyer v. Lana J. Robinson, Individually and as a Police Officer of the City of Lawrence

992 F.2d 734 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 6, 1993

The court adopted the following rule: “The question determining the existence of qualified immunity is whether a reasonable person could have believed the defendants’ actions to be lawful in light of clearly established law … Under the Harlow standard, qualified immunity should be granted when the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Leonard Foster v. Dustin Patrick

806 F.3d 883 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 20, 2015

Patrick Page 4 precluded an award of qualified immunity. Patrick filed this interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of qualified immunity. … Clearly Established Right Although it is true that the right must be clearly established in a “‘particularized’ sense,” Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 199 (2004) (per curiam) (quoting Saucier v.

Copelin-Brown v. New Mexico State Personnel Office

399 F.3d 1248 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 1, 2005

Qualified Immunity We review de novo a district court’s ruling on qualified immunity. Farmer v. Perrill, 288 F.3d 1254, 1259 (10th Cir. 2002). … At the same time, the Court has stated that “[i]f the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.”

Lyles v. City of Barling

17 F. Supp. 2d 848 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 26, 1998

A court must measure the objective reasonableness of a defendant’s conduct by reference to clearly established law. “No other ‘circumstances’ are relevant to the issue of qualified immunity.” Davis v. … that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Bailey v. Ramos

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 10, 2025

immunity because the unlawfulness of his conduct was not clearly established at the time it occurred. 54 Bailey, for his part, submits that the unlawfulness of Ramos’s takedown procedure was clearly established, … “[T]o overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff’s version of th[e] disputed facts must also constitute a violation of clearly established law.” Joseph, 981 F.3d at 330 (emphasis added).

Estevis v. Cantu

134 F.4th 793 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 16, 2025

We reverse and render judgment granting the officers qualified immunity for all shots fired. … In any event, Estevis bore the burden to negate qualified immunity by showing shots 4–9 violated clearly established law. See King v.

Lopez v. Aran

600 F. Supp. 323 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 31, 1984

The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages in the exercise of discretionary functions insofar as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … statutory right clearly established at that time.

State ex rel. Youth Services Systems, Inc. v. Wilson

204 W. Va. 637 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 13, 1999

In this case, Youth Services contends that the circuit court’s ruling with regard to its entitlement to immunity was clearly erroneous as a matter of law. III. … Since the immunity provisions at issue apply only to political subdivisions, Youth Services must first qualify as a “political subdivision” to invoke statutory immunity.