Case law

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.

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.

Rashied Goodwin v. Edward Conway

836 F.3d 321 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 12, 2016

The detectives moved for summary judgment and asserted a qualified immunity defense. … Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.17 Thus, to resolve a claim of qualified immunity, courts engage in a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether

Frank D. Unger and Sherri J. Unger v. Susan Pierce

Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia · Nov 1, 2023

Pierce were in violation of a clearly established constitutional right, nor were they fraudulent, malicious, or oppressive. … Code, 29-12A-1, et seq. is 3  entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established

Eckmann v. Board of Education of Hawthorn School District No. 17

636 F. Supp. 1214 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 19, 1986

Having at least arguably violated a clearly established constitutional right of plaintiff, the Board members lose the benefits of a qualified immunity — “immunity from suit” — and are forced to proceed to trial to test the … Qualified immunity protects government officials only in cases where it cannot be said that their actions violated rights clearly established at the time that they acted.

Holton v. Mohon

684 F. Supp. 1407 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 8, 1987

Such a finding leads this Court to a discussion of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is available only to governmental officials performing discretionary functions. Harlow v. … Because the Fourth Amendment rule on warrantless arrests is “clearly established” law, the defense of qualified immunity is available only if a reasonable officer would have believed that probable cause existed to believe

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.

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.

Corbin v. City of Springfield

942 F. Supp. 721 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 30, 1996

Qualified Immunity Rooke alleges that she is entitled to qualified immunity on Counts VI and VII because the asserted rights of the plaintiff and his wife were not clearly established as of December 27,1991. … In weighing the defense of qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, this court must first identify the applicable law and then determine whether this law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

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.”

Allen v. Higgins

902 F.2d 682 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 4, 1990

Based on the trial court’s finding that the catalog ordered by Allen, “clearly posed no threat to the security of the institution,” the trial court concluded that Groose was not entitled to qualified immunity. We agree. … A government official performing discretionary functions is generally entitled to qualified immunity when his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Doe v. LaDue

514 F. Supp. 2d 1131 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Sep 4, 2007

Plaintiffs allege that the OPD’s proactive monitoring approach violated Doe’s clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure 2 and that defendants are not entitled to qualified … As the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable. search and seizure is a well-established right, even for predatory offender registrants, qualified immunity does not protect the defendant officers. Cf.

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.

Martel, et al. v. Town of Chichester, et al.

2013 DNH 098 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jul 18, 2013

Qualified Immunity - Adinolfo “‘The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Therefore, in the absence of a clearly established constitutional right, Adinolfo is entitled to qualified immunity. 14  The Martels contend, nevertheless, that a reasonable police

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.

Shearer v. Tacoma School District No. 10

942 F. Supp. 2d 1120 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 29, 2013

Jarvis is not entitled to qualified immunity because he violated plaintiffs clearly established right to due process; (4) Dr. … Jarvis is not entitled to qualified immunity because he violated plaintiffs clearly established right to due process.

Tyner v. Department of Social & Health Services

137 Wash. App. 545 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 13, 2007

Qualified Immunity ¶26 DSHS contends that its officers are entitled to qualified immunity from Tyner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 First *561 Amendment claim because “[t]here is no law clearly establishing that criticizing one’s supervisor … We explained qualified immunity in Wilson: Public officials are immune from suit unless the “law clearly proscribed the actions” they took.

Golden Rule Insurance v. Long

113 N.C. App. 187 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 23, 1993

In order to defeat the qualified immunity, plaintiff had to show that defendant violated some clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … This standard determines if further proceedings are barred by qualified immunity by examining the law in existence at the time of the offense to determine if it contained “clearly established . . . rights of which a reasonable

Oswald v. Graves

819 F. Supp. 680 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 26, 1993

Qualified Immunity In his motion for dismissal, or alternatively, summary judgment, defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is not, however, available as a defense if the officer knew or reasonably should have known that the law clearly proscribes the action taken and that the action violated clearly established statutory or

Musonza v. Costanzo

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 2026

That is because the Court resolved the excessive force claim on the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … An officer might, therefore, be entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established right, but nevertheless not be entitled to the qualified privilege because their use of “force was not objectively