Case law

El-Ghazzawy v. Berthiaume

708 F. Supp. 2d 874 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Apr 16, 2010

Berthiaume is still entitled to qualified immunity, in the face of a constitutional violation, if the constitutional right *885 at issue was not “clearly established” at the time the violation occurred. … Therefore, Berthiaume has not met her burden in establishing her right to qualified immunity and El-Ghazzawy’s Fourth-Amendment claim will stand. II.

Williams v. Morgan

710 F. Supp. 1080 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Jan 5, 1989

Under the objective standard, the immunity defense is unavailable to the defendant “if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by [him] was clearly established at the time of [his] challenged conduct, if [he] knew or … The question becomes, therefore, whether he forfeited that immunity if he engaged in conduct which he knew or should have known would infringe a “clearly established” constitutional right enjoyed by the plaintiff.

Nigro v. Carrasquillo

152 F. Supp. 3d 1364 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Dec 17, 2015

Accordingly, Officer Carrasquillo is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wood v.

Coffin v. Brandau

597 F.3d 1205 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 24, 2010

Drawing on that precedent, we analyze whether the Deputies violated the Coffins’ clearly established Fourth Amendment rights and conclude that because they did not, the Deputies are entitled to qualified immunity. … Coffin made clear her intention to shut the garage door. 15 Therefore, we conclude that their “conduct was not so clearly established as to justify stripping [them] of qualified immunity.” McClish, 483 F.3d at 1249 .

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

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.

Eves v. LePage

842 F.3d 133 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 22, 2016

Qualified Immunity Framework Qualified immunity analysis, which forecloses Speaker Eves’s damages claims, encompasses two inquiries. … Oct. 24, 2016) (affording qualified immunity to elected official, for lack of clearly established law, in part because “it has never been established that a governmental official who does not himself retaliate but instead

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

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

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

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.

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.

Bardzik v. County of Orange

635 F.3d 1138 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 28, 2011

We have the option to address only the clearly-established step of the qualified immunity analysis. Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 818 . … Because we decide that Bardzik was a policymaker as Reserve Division Commander, we need not address the clearly-established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 818 .

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.”

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

Williams v. District of Columbia

268 F. Supp. 3d 178 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 3, 2017

"To defeat a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show not only that an official 'violated a constitutional right' but also that 'the right was clearly established' at the time of the violation. … of the Fourth Amendment, he is still entitled to qualified immunity ifthe right to be free of such force was not clearly established at the time of the violation, February 22, 2014.

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.

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.