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.

Clarence Jason v. James LeBlanc

938 F.3d 191 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 9, 2019

The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. The district court granted Secretary LeBlanc qualified immunity. But it denied qualified immunity to Ladner, Pierce, and Tanner. … Plaintiffs can go to trial if they show that the official violated their clearly established right. 11 In other words, it’s a two-prong test— (1) whether the official violated a right; and (2) whether that right was clearly

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

Mathis v. COUNTY OF LYON

633 F.3d 877 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 1, 2011

The right to notice and hearing prior to a public official’s administrative taking of property is clearly established. See, e.g., Fuentes v. … Glover was not entitled to qualified immunity because the law was clearly settled. 2 AFFIRMED. . The granting of qualified immunity is reviewed only as a part of an appeal of a final judgment. .

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.

Perry, Peary v. the City of Houston and George Greanias

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · May 23, 2002

Government officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity from liability for actions that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … in light of the clearly established rights.

Villagrana v. Kernan

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 12, 2025

immunity grounds. … Under Ninth Circuit law, qualified immunity is not 4 available to private defendants in a section 1983 suit. Danielson v.

Doug Morgan v. Plano Independent School Dist

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 2, 2014

To overcome the qualified immunity defense at the pleading stage, Morgan must allege that the objectionable conduct violated a right that was “clearly established at the time.” Pearson v. … The prior cases had so clearly established the law that the plaintiff was able to overcome the presumption in favor of qualified immunity. Id. at 1030.

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.

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

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

Braswell v. McCamman

256 F. Supp. 3d 719 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jun 21, 2017

Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating both that the challenged conduct violates a constitutional or statutory right and that the right was so clearly established at … However, “to satisfy the second prong of the [qualified-immunity] .standard, plaintiff must show that the right was clearly established in a ‘particularized sense,’ such that a reasonable officer confronted with the same

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.

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. 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 .

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.

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?