Case law

Leon Washington and Clara Washington v. James Haupert, Joel Slygh and Fred Rogers

481 F.3d 543 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 27, 2007

Governmental actors performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity and are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If the right was clearly established, the government actor is not entitled to qualified immunity. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable seizure.

Davis v. Tarrant County, Tex.

565 F.3d 214 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 8, 2009

in their judicial capacities when they established and implemented the appointment policy and denied Davis’s application; (2) that the defendant judges were immune from suit in their official capacities under the Eleventh … The 2001 amendment established a much more detailed procedural regime for the appointment of counsel in criminal cases that requires judges in each county to establish standardized countywide procedures.

Marcelino Alvarez-Victoriano v. City of Waterloo, Iowa, C.J. Nichols, In His/Her Individual and Official Capacity, and Waterloo Police Department

Supreme Court of Iowa · Jan 6, 2023

First, Iowa Code section 670.4A(1)(a) (2022) provides qualified immunity to employees or officers subject to claims arising under the IMTCA: 1. … The right, privilege, or immunity secured by law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation, or at the time of the alleged deprivation the state of the law was not sufficiently clear

Salas v. Carpenter

980 F.2d 299 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 8, 1992

IV As sheriff, Carpenter is entitled to qualified immunity from suit under section 1983 unless it is shown by specific allegations that he violated clearly established constitutional law. Anderson v. … Since qualified immunity turns on whether a defendant violated a clearly established right, a "necessary concomitant" to that decision is determining "whether the plaintiff has asserted a violation

Lal v. California

746 F.3d 1112 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 31, 2014

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Id. at 440 (quoting Pearson v. … In determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we consider (1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the officer

Supreme Video, Inc. v. Schauz

808 F. Supp. 1380 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Dec 14, 1992

On the other hand, there is no qualified immunity if the defendant violated “a clearly established and well litigated general proposition in which the case at hand merely presents a new factual wrinkle.” … immunity defense, Supreme Video must show that the defendants’ conduct violated certain constitutional rights that were clearly and particularly established at the time of the seizure.

Doe v. Hazard

152 F. Supp. 3d 859 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jan 15, 2016

The -plaintiff bears the burden of showing that a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity, O’Malley v. … The Court also finds no binding case law that any of Simpson’s alleged conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Aldarondo-Lugo v. Municipality of Toa Baja

329 F. Supp. 2d 221 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 2, 2004

Qualiñed Immunity Inquiry The qualified immunity doctrine protects civil servants from suit and liability arising from the performance of their duties “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional … The Court begins with the first prong of the qualified immunity test: whether Plaintiffs can establish that a particular defendant violated their constitutional rights.

Aguirre v. City of San Antonio

995 F.3d 395 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 22, 2021

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “[g]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … “The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether . . . the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at 656 (citing Hope v.

Erin Bulfin v. Becky Rainwater

104 F.4th 1032 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 17, 2024

immunity because the alleged Fourth Amendment right was not clearly established. … Bulfin also argues the district court erred in ruling that the individual Defendants are protected by qualified immunity because the alleged Fourth Amendment violation was not a clearly established right.

Cooper v. Brunswick County Sheriff's Department

896 F. Supp. 2d 432 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 27, 2012

Qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Barry v. Whalen

796 F. Supp. 885 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 22, 1992

Determination of a federal official’s entitlement to the protection offered by qualified immunity involves an inquiry into whether the official has violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Under this standard, Barry could prove that an official has violated his rights, but the defendants could nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity if those rights were not clearly established or if a reasonable person

Mesa v. Prejean

543 F.3d 264 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 23, 2008

Because of that uncertainty, we must take the next sequential step in qualified immunity analysis and ask whether “a reasonably competent officer would not have known his actions violated then-existing clearly established … Tarazona “must show that the legality of her conduct was clearly established.” Id.

Harris v. New York State Education Department

419 F. Supp. 2d 530 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 6, 2006

, as long as Congress’s intent to do so is expressed clearly and the state actually waives its immunity through an intentional relinquishment of a known right. … To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Harris must show that (1) he has a disability for purposes of the Rehabilitation Act; (2) he is otherwise qualified for the benefit

Archibald v. Timmons

2005 DNH 129 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Sep 13, 2005

If the asserted constitutional right was clearly established, the court then decides "whether a reasonable officer, similarly situated, would understand that the challenged conduct violated the clearly established … "An officer is entitled to qualified immunity when his conduct is objectively reasonable based on the information available at the time and in light of clearly established law." Pena-Borrero v.

Patrick v. Lewis

397 F. Supp. 2d 1134 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Oct 28, 2005

Defendants argue that Officers Lewis and Wilson are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the seizure and booking of Patrick because their conduct was reasonable and there is no clearly established right to forced … Accordingly, even if Plaintiffs had satisfied the first prong of the qualified immunity test, they would be unable to satisfy the “clearly established” prong. Cf. Davis v.

Breuder v. Bd. of Trs. of Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 502

888 F.3d 266 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 17, 2018

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from damages under § 1983 unless they transgress clearly established law. See, e.g., Kisela v. … The members who refused even to listen to him violated his clearly established rights.

Keith Edwards v. Officer J. Grubbs

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 30, 2026

Edwards to establish that qualified immunity does not apply. See Bailey, 843 F.3d at 480. … A right may be clearly established for qualified im- munity purposes in one of three ways: (1) case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional right;

Maewal v. Adventist Health Systems/Sunbelt, Inc.

868 S.W.2d 886 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 8, 1994

Appellant contends appellees failed to provide written notice as required by the act and therefore fail to qualify for immunity. We reject this contention. … Second, appellant contends appellees failed to establish lack of malice, an affirmative defense, as a matter of law and do not qualify for immunity. Texas Medical Practice Act.

Stonefield v. Lopez

District Court, D. Colorado · Jul 29, 2019

“Individual defendants named in a § 1983 action may raise a defense of qualified immunity, which shields public officials from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … In a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that: (1) a constitutional violation occurred; and (2) that the constitutional right that was violated was clearly established