Case law

Mark v. Shoen Edward J. Shoen v. Leonard Samuel Shoen Christina G. Shoen, Ronald J. Watkins, Witness-Appellant

48 F.3d 412 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 15, 1995

Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 , 92 S.Ct. 2646 , 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972), as establishing a qualified privilege for journalists against compelled disclosure of information gathered in the course of their work. … As a result, Leonard Shoen’s September 1991 statements, if any, regarding his attitude toward plaintiffs are not clearly relevant to an important issue in this litigation. 1 Although plaintiffs’ failure to establish clear

Jackson v. Johnson

797 F. Supp. 2d 1057 · District Court, D. Montana · Jul 18, 2011

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields a government actor from a suit for damages if the actor could have reasonably believed his conduct was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information possessed … With that determination it is necessary to turn to the second step in the qualified immunity analysis, i.e., whether the right violated by Deputy Johnson was clearly established in the law as of June 10, 2009. b.

Harrison v. State

203 So. 3d 126 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · Dec 18, 2015

Absent a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary, the language of the statute is conclusive. … We first note that Harrison is not entitled to any relief on his claim that he presented sufficient evidence during trial and after trial to establish that he was immune from prosecution.

Brown v. Fogle

867 F. Supp. 2d 61 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 17, 2012

Qualified immunity is “a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct ‘d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Bame v. … "If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity." Id.

Trugreen Landcare, L.L.C. v. Scott

512 F. Supp. 2d 613 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 16, 2007

Nationsbank Corp., 188 F.3d 579, 588 (5th Cir.1999) (holding that individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from suit alleging RICO claim because rights that served as basis of claim were not clearly established … Although it is well settled that qualified immunity is not analyzed in identical terms as are the merits of Scott’s RICO claim, in these circumstances' — where Duebner is clearly entitled to summary judgment and has already

Ricky Brogsdale v. Marion S. Barry, Jr., Donyell A. Marsh v. Marion S. Barry, Jr.

926 F.2d 1184 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 12, 1991

legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … Hollowell, 714 F.2d 1372, 1376 (5th Cir.1983) (inmates’ rights were “clearly established” by earlier court order, such that breach of that order could not be within officials’ qualified immunity).

Escalera-Saldado v. United States

261 F. Supp. 3d 163 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 26, 2016

The qualified immunity doctrine “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly ’ established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … To do so, the plaintiff must show that (1) “defendants violated a statutory or constitutional right,” and that (2) “the right was clearly established at the time.” Morales, 794 F.3d at 214 .

Arias v. Amador

61 F. Supp. 3d 960 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 21, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … . *971 The qualified immunity inquiry has two prongs: (1) “whether the facts that a plaintiff has ... shown ... make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and (2) “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established

Cunningham v. Snyder

472 F. Supp. 2d 1023 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 19, 2006

To defeat a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that “the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions or, ... the law … See Greenberg, 840 F.2d at 472 (quoting Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 ) (observing that the principle underlying the doctrine of qualified immunity is that “[i]f the law at the time was not clearly established,

Shekleton v. Eichenberger

677 F.3d 361 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 3, 2012

Qualified immunity protects officers from liability in a section 1983 case “unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.” … clearly established constitutional violation.

Olson v. Johnson

961 So. 2d 356 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 29, 2007

Alternatively, Johnson asserts that a qualified privilege is applicable and is sufficient to defeat Olson's claim. We conclude that neither an absolute nor a qualified privilege applies here. … Sovereign Immunity Does Not Apply Finally, Johnson has failed to explain how her actions in filing the police affidavit could possibly be protected by sovereign immunity.

Ringuette v. City of Fall River

146 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 5, 1998

Mass. 1995), but several claims were reserved for trial, and the issue of qualified immunity was not resolved. … violated clearly established law.

Murphy v. Carroll

202 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 10, 2002

To determine the applicability of qualified immunity, this court follows a two-step analysis. … “Clearly established,” for pin-poses of qualified immunity analysis, means that the “contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Jackson v. Brown

134 F. Supp. 3d 1237 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 28, 2015

Accordingly, the Court skips the first step of the Saucier qualified immunity analysis. b. Defendants Did Not Violate Clearly Established Law. … The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to determine whether the allegedly violated constitutional right was clearly established at the time that Defendants allegedly violated that right.

Ricardo Salazar-Limon v. City of Houston

826 F.3d 272 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 16, 2016

“In order to overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must allege a violation of a constitutional right, and then must show that ‘the right was clearly established . . . in light of the specific context of the case … of which was clearly unreasonable.”

Amore v. Novarro

610 F.3d 155 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 22, 2010

The district court concluded that Novarro was not entitled to qualified immunity: Amore had a clearly established constitutional right to be free from unlawful arrest, and it would have been clear to a reasonable officer … Whether the “objectively reasonable” inquiry is framed as part of the “clearly established” inquiry, or apart from it, does not affect the outcome of the qualified immunity analysis here. 9 *163 III.

Mason v. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

774 F. Supp. 2d 349 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 29, 2011

entitled to qualified immunity because their liability had not been “clearly established.” 160 The Individual Defendants provide no First Circuit case law to support the application of qualified immunity here. 161 The Individual … See, e.g., Darby, 287 F.3d at 681 (explaining that the qualified immunity defense does not apply because the FMLA creates "clearly established statutory rights”).

Mocek v. City of Albuquerque

813 F.3d 912 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 22, 2015

A circuit split will not satisfy the clearly established prong of qualified immunity. But even if we were persuaded by Tobey, Mocek has made no compelling argument as to why its logic should apply here. … Jurisdiction 10 Although qualified immunity shields municipal employees where the law is not clearly established, this defense does not apply to municipalities themselves. Cordova v.

Fuller v. Truncale

50 So. 3d 25 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 2, 2010

In the motion to dismiss, Fuller claimed judicial immunity against the class action, arguing he was simply following protocol established in several administrative orders. … Exposito, 824 So.2d 954, 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (stating ”[b]ecause qualified immunity protects an individual from having to defend a suit, O'Brien will effectively lose his entitlement to qualified immunity if the case proceeds

Bruner v. Cassidy

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

Clearly established that it was unreasonable Even if their conduct is deemed unreasonable in the instant case, officers are still entitled to qualified immunity if the law did not clearly establish that the conduct … This use of force was excessive, and the law clearly established it was a constitutional violation at the time, meaning the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity.