Case law

Opinion Number

Louisiana Attorney General Reports · Sep 18, 2001

Second is qualified immunity, which protects an official from liability unless the official clearly violates an established statutory or constitutional right. The court in Lucas v. Parish of Jefferson , 999 F. … Under this rationale, a person, such as a prosecutor, could have absolute immunity for some of his conduct but only qualified immunity for other of his job-related activities.

A.D. v. Markgraf

636 F.3d 555 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 6, 2011

Markgraf moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity. … [1] To determine whether an officer such as Markgraf is entitled to qualified immunity, we inquire whether a constitu- tional right would have been violated on the facts alleged and whether the right was clearly established

Webster v. Moquin

175 F. Supp. 2d 315 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Nov 20, 2001

Once a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that immunity does not apply. See Davis v. … Because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, the defendants bear the “burden of demonstrating the nonexistence of a clearly established right.” Tellier v. Fields, No. 98-2249, 2001 WL 457767, at *11 (2d Cir.

Ngong Garang v. City of Ames

2 F.4th 1115 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 30, 2021

claim for violation of a constitutional or statutory right,” and second, “whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged infraction.” … In conducting this analysis, we “may review the legal issues whether conduct violated the Fourth Amendment or clearly established law,” but “cannot review whether a factual dispute is genuine.” Sok Kong v.

Dustin Williamson v. Bryan Stirling

912 F.3d 154 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 21, 2018

In making its qualified immunity rulings, the district court relied solely on the clearly established prong, deciding that Williamson’s due process rights were not clearly established, and thus awarded qualified immunity … If the law regarding the level of process owed to pretrial detainees was not clearly established as to either situation, Director Stirling and Sheriff Carroll would yet be entitled to qualified immunity on Williamson’s

Coburn v. Nordeen

206 F. Supp. 2d 1119 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 6, 2002

Thus, Nordeen’s conduct, in filing a sworn complaint and sworn affidavit stating the facts purporting to establish probable cause, is entitled to qualified, not absolute immunity. … of ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” 23 Plaintiffs argument that Nordeen is not entitled to qualified immunity is based on three premises: (1) that

Fletcher v. District of Columbia

481 F. Supp. 2d 156 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 26, 2007

Hence, the second step of the qualified immunity test — whether the constitutional right was clearly established — must be reached here. … The individual defendants are clearly entitled to qualified immunity here.

Lawrence v. United States

340 F.3d 952 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 21, 2003

If the right is not clearly established, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. … “[Qualified immunity shields agents ... if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed [the action] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.’ ” Hunter v.

J.R. v. Gloria

593 F.3d 73 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 27, 2010

They asserted, among other grounds, a qualified immunity defense to the § 1983 claim and immunity to the state law negligence claims based on Rhode Island's state sovereign immunity and state qualified immunity law. … We need not address whether any such "right" would have been clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, Saucier v.

Stone v. Olderbak Georgetown/Willows LLC

District Court, D. Nebraska · Mar 1, 2024

The Order Is Not Clearly Erroneous Part of Defendant’s first objection and Defendant’s third objection assert that the Order is clearly erroneous. … Dillard’s, Inc., 643 F.3d 607, 613 (8th Cir. 2011) (explaining that the possibility of a different result does not establish that the result is clearly erroneous).

Wiltzius v. Town of New Milford

453 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 18, 2006

In opposing *432 these counts, the individual defendants urge that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established rights of the defendant or, in the alternative, the actions of … As this court agrees that the substantive due process rights claimed by the plaintiff are not clearly established, it grants the individual defendants qualified immunity on these claims.

Boyer v. County of Washington

971 F.2d 100 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 10, 1992

Finally, DeClue asserts that notwithstanding any factual dispute, she is entitled to qualified immunity because the law is not clearly established that the Fourth Amendment requires determination of probable cause before, … Likewise, because qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,” the denial of a claim of qualified immunity is also immediately appealable. Id. at 526-27 , 105 S.Ct. at 2815-16 .

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).

Williams v. Wapinsky

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2024

A qualified immunity determination involves a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether a constitutional or federal right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was “clearly established.” Saucier v. … Given that Williams has failed to allege that Defendants violated a clearly established right in this setting, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this Eighth Amendment claim. IV.

Israel Alicea Rosado v. Carmen Sonia Zayas, Secretary of the Department of Social Services of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Gaddiel Morales Burgos v. Patria Custodio

813 F.2d 1263 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 20, 1987

Fair, 804 F.2d 164 (1st Cir.1986), the right at issue was one applicable to all persons, and the qualified immunity question therefore simply was whether it was clearly established that an individual had a right to be free … Thus, in asking the qualified immunity question, we must recognize the individual nature of the right allegedly violated and ask whether it was clearly established that someone in the particular position before us was entitled

Arce v. Childrens Hospital Los Angeles

211 Cal. App. 4th 1455 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 17, 2012

Thus, Congress clearly intended to authorize immunity for reporters in order to encourage more extensive reporting. … Under section 1983, government officials are generally entitled to “qualified immunity,” which “shields [them] from liability for civil damages if (1) the law governing the official’s conduct was clearly established; and

Flores Camilo v. Alvarez Ramirez

283 F. Supp. 2d 440 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 21, 2003

Qualified Immunity According to Defendant, his conduct is protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity because it was imminently reasonable and did not violate clearly established law. … The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit and liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable

Krider v. Marshall

118 F. Supp. 2d 704 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Oct 6, 2000

Doory, 14 F.3d 993, 995 (4th Cir.1994): “Qualified immunity shields a governmental official from liability for civil monetary damages if the officer’s ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The Court of Appeals has parsed out the qualified immunity analysis: “First, we must identify the right allegedly violated; second, we must decide whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

John Sabo v. Megan Erickson

128 F.4th 836 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 31, 2025

Qualified Immunity and Clearly Established Law A constitutional or statutory right is “clearly established” when the law is “‘sufficiently clear’ that every ‘reasonable of- ficial would understand that what he is doing’ is … For a discussion about the future of qualified immunity, see id. at 560–68.

Williams v. Condon

347 S.C. 227 · Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Oct 1, 2001

But the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor’s immunity would disserve the broader public interest. … Furthermore, the O’Laughlin Court clearly stated that the provisions of the Tort Claims Act do not supplant common law immunity doctrines. Prosecutorial immunity is a common law immunity doctrine.