Case law

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

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

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Rose v. Town of Jackson's Gap

952 F. Supp. 757 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 2, 1996

Both Sanders and Parrish claim they are immune from suit under the well-established doctrine of qualified immunity. … a qualified immunity defense. 11 .

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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