Case law

Doe v. Aguilar

400 F. Supp. 2d 922 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Apr 4, 2005

As noted above, plaintiffs have the burden to show that qualified immunity is unavailable here and to do so plaintiffs must show that the right which they allege defendant violated was clearly established in December 2001 … City of Corinth, 135 F.3d 320 , 325 (5th Cir.1998): In reviewing a claim of qualified immunity, this Court must determine: ‘(1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right;

Brenes-Laroche v. Toledo Davila

682 F. Supp. 2d 179 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 26, 2010

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 rights of which a reasonable person … In conducting our qualified immunity analysis, we take the Plaintiffs facts as true for purposes of determining whether Defendants have violated his constitutional rights and whether the right at issue was clearly established

Ellsberg v. Mitchell

670 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 20, 1984

on the Supreme Court’s new qualified immunity test enunciated in Harlow v. … Harlow disposed of the “subjective” aspect of qualified immunity and held that courts should examine only the “objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to ‘clearly established’ law.”

Marsilio v. Vigluicci

924 F. Supp. 2d 837 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 14, 2013

Plaintiff has not satisfied her burden of establishing that Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Doc. 20, p. 6. … that was clearly established at the time in question.

Melvin Taylor v. Edward Reilly, Jr.

685 F.3d 1110 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 17, 2012

or, in the alternative, qualified immunity. … The Court has explained, for example, that although “the right to due process of law is quite clearly established by the Due Process Clause,” that level of generality is too high for purposes of qualified immunity because

Ricker v. Leapley

25 F.3d 1406 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 7, 1994

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … We have concluded that both Leapley and Weber are entitled to qualified immunity because Ricker has failed to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Provencio v. Vazquez

258 F.R.D. 626 · District Court, E.D. California · Jul 29, 2009

immunity because the violation was not “clearly established.” cf. … Turning to the two factors for qualified immunity identified in Saucier the court on this issue will first inquire into whether the right was “clearly established.”

Binkowski v. Family & Children's Services Agency

39 F. Supp. 2d 882 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Dec 3, 1998

It is not enough for a plaintiff to allege that the right to due process of law is “clearly established” under the Fourteenth Amendment. … However, qualified immunity applies only to individuals, not government entities. See, e.g., Leatherman v.

Parker v. Gerrish

547 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 5, 2008

Though the motion did not refer to "qualified immunity" or to "clearly established law," Gerrish contends he adequately raised that issue. … Gerrish did not refer to "clearly established law" and made no effort to address his argument to qualified immunity.

VanHorn v. Nebraska State Racing Commission

304 F. Supp. 2d 1151 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Jan 27, 2004

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects government officials from damage liability unless their discretionary acts violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. See Harlow v. … The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Hafley v.

Newcomb v. City of Troy

719 F. Supp. 1408 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 18, 1989

The “clearly established law” at the time Plaintiff was seized by Officer Denny permitted the application of deadly force in limited circumstances. … The claims against Officer Denny are dismissed above on the basis of qualified immunity under Anderson v. Creighton, supra.

Carswell v. Borough Of Homestead

381 F.3d 235 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 20, 2004

constitutional sense and the ruling on qualified immunity. … Saucier emphasized that the inquiry for qualified immunity eligibility is distinct from establishment of a constitutional violation of excessive force.

Peter Klassen v. Gaines County, Texas, and Gaines County Deputy Sheriffs Ken Ketron and Clint Low

Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) · Jul 15, 2021

“[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time. … doctrine of qualified immunity only applies to “individuals.”

McCormack v. Livergood

353 F. Supp. 3d 357 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2018

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials performing "discretionary functions," are shielded from suit if their conduct did not violate a "clearly established statutory or constitutional right[ … were "clearly established" at the time of the incident.

HASSUNEH v. City of Minneapolis

560 F. Supp. 2d 764 · District Court, D. Minnesota · May 29, 2008

Here, Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims. Qualified immunity shields government officials as well as private individuals from civil liability under § 1983. … Second, the alleged right must be clearly established. Id.

Donald Xiques v. Charme Knight

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Aug 21, 2003

We conclude that the defendant, a state prosecutor, is entitled to qualified immunity because her statements did not violate “clearly established” federal law, a requirement for recovering … Plaintiff argues that the issues in these two cases are not identical, because the Sixth Circuit opinion merely dealt with the issue of qualified immunity, and whether or not defendant had violated “clearly established law

Hampton Co. Nat. Sur., LLC v. Tunica County, Miss.

543 F.3d 221 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 18, 2008

An uncertain right cannot be “a clearly established” right. Qualified immunity applies to the claim that Sheriff Hamp violated Due Process rights. … Unlike in the determination of qualified immunity for the Sheriff, the County cannot rely on there being no clearly established right when the Sheriff acted.

Spruytte v. Hoffner

197 F. Supp. 2d 931 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Mar 30, 2001

The Sixth Circuit determined that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the law concerning a prisoner’s retaliation claim was not “clearly established” for purposes of the qualified immunity defense prior … because the law was not clearly established.

Theadore Black v. Thomas A. Coughlin III

76 F.3d 72 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 9, 1996

immunity a “defendant must establish that he had an objectively reasonable belief that his act violated no clearly established rights,” id. at 54 ), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1837 , 131 L.Ed.2d 756 (1995); Walker … Moreover, to the extent that Black claims that Ryan was biased against him, it is not a given that Ryan would be entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law, for it has long been clearly established that an inmate subject

Castle v. Appalachian Technical College

631 F.3d 1194 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 27, 2011

Qualified immunity shields government officials sued in their individual capacity from liability for civil damages if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation.