Case law

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

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.

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. 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.

Wright v. South Arkansas Regional Health Center, Inc.

800 F.2d 199 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 2, 1986

violation of clearly established law.” … If properly supported, such an allegation could make out a violation of clearly established law and might defeat a motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity.

Velharticky v. Independent School District No. 3 of Roger Mills County

846 F. Supp. 941 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 17, 1993

Therefore, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of all Defendants and against Plaintiff. 2 QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity is available to government officials unless they violate clearly established statutory … Clearly, the board members receipt of complaints and other investigative activities does not violate a clearly established law.

Houck v. City of Prairie Village

942 F. Supp. 493 · District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 27, 1996

was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred.” … Therefore, he is entitled to qualified immunity from liability.

Brian Barlow v. Officer George Ground, I.D. 9129

943 F.2d 1132 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 5, 1991

The doctrine of qualified immunity does not apply if reasonable officers would have known they were violating clearly established Constitutional rights. See White v. Pierce County, 797 F.2d 812, 815 (9th Cir.1986). … It must decide “[wjhether a reasonable official would know that she is violating that clearly established law.” Id.

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

William King v. Jason Chide and Mark Gonzales

974 F.2d 653 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 13, 1992

Our first inquiry in the examination of a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity is whether the Plaintiff has “alleg[ed] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Siegert v. … Qualified immunity cloaks a police officer from liability if a reasonably competent law enforcement agent would not have known that his actions violated clearly established law. Jackson v.

Tachiquin v. Stowell

789 F. Supp. 1512 · District Court, E.D. California · May 4, 1992

If the plaintiff fails to state with specificity a “claim of a violation of a clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell v. … not, was the absence of probable cause so clear as to constitute a violation of a clearly established constitutional right) under the law as it existed at the time?

Johnson v. Utah Department of Transportation

547 Utah Adv. Rep. 7 · Utah Supreme Court · Mar 10, 2006

However, discretionary immunity clearly was not designed to cloak the ancient doctrine of sovereign immunity in modern garb.”). … Rather, we reaffirm prior case law that such studies substantially help the government establish that immunity is warranted under the discretionary function exception.

Penlyn Development Corp. v. Incorporated Village of Lloyd Harbor

51 F. Supp. 2d 255 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 16, 1999

Qualified Immunity The defendant also moves for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Even where the plaintiffs rights and the scope of the officials’ permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a governmental actor if it was “objectively reasonable” for the actor to

Nancy Roell v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs

870 F.3d 471 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 5, 2017

“In order for a right to be clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity, ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that … We, on the other hand, have utilized the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis to conclude that the deputies are entitled to summary judgment because no caselaw clearly established that the degree of force used

James Gladden, Jr. v. Kenneth Richbourg

759 F.3d 960 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 23, 2014

Thus, Gladden can prevail against the officers only if they violated his clearly established constitutional rights. Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” … If, based on those facts, the officer reasonably failed to comprehend that he was violating a person’s clearly established constitutional rights, he is entitled to qualified immunity from suit. Id.

Langworthy v. Dean

37 F. Supp. 2d 417 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 8, 1999

As there is not a clearly established constitutional right to have claims of criminal activity by a private actor investigated, the doctrine of qualified immunity will bar these claims. 4 Plaintiff argues that his fight to … As the treaties do not provide the Plaintiff with a clearly established right to have his claims investigated and prosecuted, all of the Defendants are protected from suit by qualified immunity. 6 V As mentioned previously

Cooper v. Martin

634 F.3d 477 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 11, 2011

The defendants bear the burden of establishing the relevant facts supporting qualified immunity, while Cooper receives the benefit of all reasonable inferences. See Wallingford v. … “Qualified immunity protects public officials from damage actions if their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Morris v.

Bensch v. Metropolitan Dade County

798 F. Supp. 678 · District Court, S.D. Florida · May 4, 1992

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985), the Supreme Court reiterated: “Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, however, so it may only be asserted in a 12(b)(6) motion when the “complaint itself establishes ... qualified immunity.” Green v.

Nathan Rice v. Reliastar Life Insurance Co.

770 F.3d 1122 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 27, 2014

Qualified immunity is a two-prong analysis. … The Supreme Court has explained that the clearly established standard incorporates an objective reasonableness inquiry: To be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity, “[t]he contours of the right

ABATE of Georgia, Inc. v. State of Georgia

137 F. Supp. 2d 1349 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Apr 4, 2001

To overcome qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must show that: (1) Defendants violated a federal constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Santamorena v. … In Lassi-ter, the Eleventh Circuit held that for a law to be clearly established in the qualified immunity context, “preexisting law must dictate, that is truly compel (not just suggest or allow or raise a question about)