Case law

Vélez-Herrero v. Guzman

330 F. Supp. 2d 62 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 13, 2004

Plaintiff Vélez counters that because her constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, Defendant Alejandro is, therefore, not entitled to qualified immunity. … We use a three-part test to determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity: (1) whether, as alleged, a constitutional violation has occurred; (2) whether the constitutional right was clearly established at

Hill v. Dekalb Regional Youth Detention Center

40 F.3d 1176 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 27, 1994

Swain is entitled to qualified immunity because she violated no clearly established Eighth Amendment law in August, 1987. … Importantly, for qualified immunity purposes, Swain cannot be held responsible for knowledge of Barfield , decided by this court in September, 1989, because it was not clearly established law in August, 1987.

Gagne v. DeMarco

281 F. Supp. 2d 390 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 26, 2003

The defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. The Court will address each of these arguments below after a general discussion of qualified immunity. … If the law was clearly established that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, qualified immunity is inappropriate.

Fernando C. HARVEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thorne BLAKE, Defendant-Appellant

913 F.2d 226 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 1, 1990

Cater in her individual capacity under the doctrine of qualified immunity. The district court declined, however, to grant Ms. Blake qualified immunity, reasoning that Ms. … which were clearly established at the time, qualified immunity should have been given.

Abila v. Funk

220 F. Supp. 3d 1121 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 23, 2016

*1170 established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis.

Cipes v. Graham

386 F. Supp. 2d 34 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 29, 2005

to qualified immunity. … Law is not “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity by district court opinions, but by the decisions of circuit courts or the Supreme Court. Hawkins v.

Doe v. University of Cincinnati

173 F. Supp. 3d 586 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 23, 2016

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity and thus shielded from suit under § 1983, for his . actions if his conduct.does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable … When a defendant raises qualified immunity as a defense, as the Defendants have doné' in this case, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity, Everson v.

Holeman v. City of New London

425 F.3d 184 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 30, 2005

III Qualified immunity “shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively reasonable … objectively unreasonable under clearly established federal law.

Brown v. Armenti

247 F.3d 69 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 17, 2001

immunity, "the appealable issue is a purely legal one: whether the facts alleged . . . support a claim of violation of clearly established law." … "clearly established." 31 Behrens v.

Thorpe v. Weaver

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 8, 2026

To overcome qualified immunity, plaintiffs must show: “(1) that the [officer] violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Plaintiffs cannot show that Weaver violated clearly established law. Even if Weaver learned of Boykin’s distress, we still grant her qualified immunity.

Lincoln v. Barnes

855 F.3d 297 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 20, 2017

Doctrine of Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Clearly Established Law The second part of the qualified immunity inquiry looks to whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Watson v. Apache County

218 Ariz. 512 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · May 6, 2008

The Watsons challenge the court’s rulings that the County is entitled to qualified immunity and that they failed to *514 present or identify facts or an expert witness to establish gross negligence. … Specifically, they argue that, if the County is not protected by qualified immunity, then the issue of gross negligence is irrelevant.

Bolger v. District of Columbia

608 F. Supp. 2d 10 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2009

If, however, there is a constitutional violation, the second step in the analysis is to determine “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … Circuit cases discussed here establish that such a rule could not be considered "clearly established" in this Circuit at that time.

Citizens for Uniform Taxation v. Northport Public School District

239 Mich. App. 284 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 2000

Statutes are presumed constitutional, and courts have a duty to construe a statute as constitutional unless unconstitutionality is clearly apparent. … Section 1211 treats nonresidents who own property that does not qualify as homestead property exactly the same as Michigan residents who own property that does not qualify as homestead property, neither are eligible for the

Lucero v. Bush

737 F. Supp. 2d 992 · District Court, D. South Dakota · Sep 1, 2010

Evaluating qualified immunity is an objective test: defendants are entitled to qualified immunity “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Defendants’ qualified immunity defense must fail since reasonable police officers should or would have known the constitutional principles governing their conduct were clearly established and prohibited such action.

Christopher MACKINNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Garon NIELSEN, Dash Butler, Al Littles, and City of Berkeley, Defendants-Appellees

69 F.3d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 6, 1995

Whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity turns on a two part inquiry: “(1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? … Ninth Circuit law also clearly establishes the right verbally to challenge the police. In Duran v.

Irvin Morales v. CO John Doe #2, Jon Fouts, Roderick Greenwood, and Keith Forcier

2020 DNH 046 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 24, 2020

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged … “‘[C]learly established law’ should not be defined ‘at a high level of generality.’ . . . [T]he clearly established law must be ‘particularized’ to the facts of the case.” White v. Pauly, 137 S.

Conroy v. Caron

275 F. Supp. 3d 328 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 8, 2017

That is because 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 … Moreover, their entry into the garages under these . assumed circumstances violated clearly established law, such that they are- not entitled at this time to the protection of qualified immunity. 5 *344 2.

Greenwood v. State of New York

939 F. Supp. 1060 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 3, 1996

Qualified Immunity Individual defendants rely on the doctrine of qualified immunity in support of their motion for summary judgment. … Thus, defendants claiming qualified immunity must show either: (1) that the right “was [not] clearly established at the time of the alleged violation,” or (2) that “reasonable persons in their position would not have understood

Orin v. Barclay

272 F.3d 1207 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 9, 2001

Qualified immunity shields them “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Orin’s First Amendment rights, in the context of this case, were clearly established.