Case law

Victor R. Rodriguez-Burgos v. Electric Energy Authority

853 F.2d 31 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 3, 1988

We address the qualified immunity question first. II. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY A. … The defendants were thus entitled to qualified immunity from the plaintiff’s damages claims since the plaintiff held the type of upper-level management or administrative post that was not clearly protected against patronage

Currier Ex Rel. Estate of Juarez v. Doran

23 F. Supp. 2d 1277 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Oct 21, 1998

In addition, however, Gonzales and Robbins maintain they violated no clearly established law and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Discussion A. … When a qualified immunity defense is raised in a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff assumes the burden of showing the defendant violated clearly established law. Breidenbach v. Bolish, 126 F.3d 1288, 1291 (10th Cir.1997).

Walker v. Schult

717 F.3d 119 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 23, 2013

was "clearly established" at the time of the challenged conduct. … If an official's conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, or if the official reasonably believed that his conduct did not violate such a right, then he is protected by qualified immunity.

Robinson v. Ash

374 F. Supp. 3d 1171 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 18, 2019

Defendant therefore does not receive the benefit of the arguable-probable-cause standard used to assess whether the right was "clearly established," the second step in the qualified immunity analysis. See Poulakis v. … App'x 523 , 526 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining that the "arguable probable cause" inquiry is part of the "clearly established" prong of qualified immunity).

Sheets v. Butera

389 F.3d 772 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 9, 2004

"If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity." Id. … As previously noted, before we determine whether the law was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, we first must determine whether the facts alleged show that the officers violated a constitutional right

Tavarez-Guerrero v. Toledo-Davila

573 F. Supp. 2d 507 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 16, 2008

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claim shall not be dismissed. 5) Qualified Immunity We will now discuss whether the doctrine of qualified immunity bars Plaintiffs’ claims against Toledo and Marvin. … Since the answer to all three prongs of qualified immunity test is in the affirmative, the Court finds that Plaintiff has overcome the qualified immunity defense raised by Toledo and Marvin. 6) Supervisor Liability Toledo

Boyer v. Petersen

221 F. Supp. 3d 943 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Oct 27, 2016

Legal Framework: Qualified Immunity “[Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Chief Campbell is entitled to qualified immunity. Chief Campbell, on the other hand, is entitled to qualified immunity.

Elkins v. Summit County, Ohio

615 F.3d 671 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2010

Qualified Immunity In evaluating qualified immunity claims, we “[f]irst . . . determine whether a constitutional violation occurred; second, we determine whether the right that was violated was a clearly established … immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law.’”

Charter Township of York v. Donald Miller

322 Mich. App. 648 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 2018

The MMMA provides immunity from arrest, prosecution, and penalties in any manner, and prohibits the denial of any rights or privileges to qualifying medical marijuana patients and registered primary caregivers. … The MMMA also provides that other state law inconsistent with the MMMA may not interfere with the rights established under the MMMA.

Burhans v. Lopez

24 F. Supp. 3d 375 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 10, 2014

An official is entitled to qualified immunity if his or her “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” DiStiso v. … Finally, Silver asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity under state and city law.

Essence Welch v. Daniel Dempsey

51 F.4th 809 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 20, 2022

In a footnote, the court noted that Dempsey’s motion made “a passing reference that ‘at minimum’ he is entitled to qualified immunity,” and concluded that the law was clearly established that retaliation for protected speech … In an interlocutory appeal raising a defense of qualified immunity, this court has jurisdiction to address only an order deciding a purely legal issue of whether the facts alleged by a plaintiff show a violation of clearly

Hanas v. Inner City Christian Outreach, Inc.

542 F. Supp. 2d 683 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 29, 2008

’s constitutional rights were clearly established. … Hanas’s right under the Establishment Clause to be free from state coercion was clearly established since 2001. See Inouye v.

Hal Stanley v. Asa Hutchinson

12 F.4th 834 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 8, 2021

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from § 1983 damages actions if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Finally, even if the Fourth Amendment applies in this situation, an issue we do not decide, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in the Eighth Circuit when the Stanley children

Zarnow v. City of Wichita Falls, Texas

500 F.3d 401 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 13, 2007

Smith, 117 F.3d 866, 871-72 (5th Cir. 1997) (“We do not require that an official demonstrate that he did not violate clearly established federal rights; our precedent places that burden upon plaintiffs.”). … To prevail, Zarnow must show that the search was unreasonable under clearly-established law at the time of the search. See Sorenson v. Ferrie, 134 F.3d 325, 328 (5th Cir. 1998).

Peter Antonellis v. Department of Elder Affairs and Ann Hartsein, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of Elder Affairs

Massachusetts Superior Court · Jan 15, 2019

Even if Plaintiff establishes these three elements, a Defendant escapes liability if he or she shows an entitlement to qualified immunity, an affirmative defense. DiMarco C Zappa v. … clearly established rights."

Daniel J. Leveto v. Robert A. Lapina

258 F.3d 156 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 17, 2001

B. 11 The principles governing claims of qualified immunity are well-established. … See Brown, 922 F.2d at 1118-19 (recognizing that the clearly established requirement "may produce distressing results," but finding defendants entitled to qualified immunity).

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.

John Doe v. Univ. of Kentucky

860 F.3d 365 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 15, 2017

Defendant Simpson fails to show this procedure is inapplicable in cases involving qualified immunity.4 The concerns that support determining qualified immunity at the earliest stage of litigation are not present … As qualified immunity is “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,” it becomes essentially meaningless if a case wrongfully goes to trial. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 231.

Maritza Amador v. Bexar County

952 F.3d 624 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 11, 2020

Flores’s Fourth Amendment Right Was Clearly Established The second question in the qualified immunity analysis is whether clearly established law prohibited the officers from shooting Flores in these circumstances … We cannot “‘define clearly established law at a high level of generality,’” id.

Moreta-Ramirez v. Lemert

156 F. Supp. 2d 138 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 18, 2001

Qualified Immunity Defendants invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity in support of their motion to dismiss. The defense of qualified immunity is available to federal officials acting in the scope of their employment. … Interpreting Harlow , the First Circuit has established a three-part inquiry to determine whether or not the doctrine of qualified immunity applies in a given situation.