Case law

Reyes-Reyes v. Toledo-Davila

860 F. Supp. 2d 152 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 17, 2012

Qualified immunity, “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liabilityU” Hunter v. … Here, Benitez is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) “the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right” and (2) such right was “ ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant

Marantes v. Miami-Dade County

649 F. App'x 665 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 28, 2016

Thus, the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacity unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Young v. Selk

508 F.3d 868 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 28, 2007

“Qualified immunity protects state officials from civil liability for actions that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Shockency v. … The defendants in their brief do not focus on this aspect of qualified immunity. First of all, in any case, it was no doubt clearly established long before 2004, when Mr.

Minigan v. Irvin

977 F. Supp. 607 · District Court, W.D. New York · Aug 18, 1997

Qualified Immunity. Defendants are also entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. … Even when such rights are clearly established, qualified immunity will protect a government official “if it was objectively reasonable for [the official] to believe that his acts did not violate those rights.”

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.

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

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.

Pavlov v. Parsons

574 F. Supp. 393 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 14, 1983

and qualified immunity from the constitutional tort claims. … Once the defendant establishes this defense, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to prove that the defendants’ action violated clearly established law. Harlow v.

Baisi v. Burke

359 F. Supp. 3d 592 · District Court, E.D. Illinois · Jan 9, 2019

Accordingly, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and I dismiss the complaint on that basis. … To overcome defendants' assertion of qualified immunity, plaintiff must show that the constitutional right he seeks to vindicate was clearly established at the time of the conduct in question.

Fernando Jacquez v. R.K. Procunier

801 F.2d 789 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 10, 1986

Qualified immunity shields state officials from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Forsyth stated, “[ujnless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” 472 U.S.

Beckinger v. TOWNSHIP OF ELIZABETH

697 F. Supp. 2d 610 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2010

A broad and generalized declaration that a clearly established federal right was violated is insufficient. … The relevant conduct in Reilly occurred prior to Garcetti at a time when the right was clearly established.

Connecticut ex rel. Blumenthal v. Crotty

346 F.3d 84 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 30, 2003

Disagreeing with Appellants, the district court denied qualified immunity after determining that Yolovar’s rights were clearly established at the time of enforcement and that Appellants’ enforcement of the Nonresident Lobster … Qualified immunity is warranted if either *102 (1) the official’s actions did not violate clearly established law, or (2) even if the actions violated a clearly established law, the official was objectively reasonable in

Posey v. City of Buckhannon

228 W. Va. 612 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jan 27, 2012

City of Huntington, 198 W.Va. 139 , 479 S.E.2d 649 (1996), makes clear: The ultimate determination of whether qualified or statutory immunity bars a civil action is one of law for the court to determine. … Therefore, unless there is a bona fide dispute as to the foundational or historical facts that underlie the immunity determination, the ultimate questions of statutory or qualified immunity are ripe for summary disposition

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.

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.

Rincover v. State, Department of Finance, Securities Bureau

128 Idaho 653 · Idaho Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1996

However, the United States Supreme Court has held that although qualified immunity is the general rule for executive officials charged with constitutional violations, absolute immunity applies to those officials performing … Because we conclude that Klein and Patty are entitled to absolute immunity, we will not consider whether the standards for the doctrine of qualified immunity have been met and will, rather, affirm the district court’s decision

Carolyn Arnett v. Larry Norris

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 3, 2025

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials and officers from § 1983 claims when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show (1) the presented facts “make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right,” and (2) “that right was clearly established at the time of the defendant[s’] alleged

Luis J. Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. Carmen Sonia Zayas, Etc.

878 F.2d 1500 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 5, 1988

More importantly, in the determination of whether qualified immunity applies, the proper focus is on whether the plaintiff’s right to continued employment was clearly established, not on whether the job involves policy-making … A decision which denies qualified immunity necessarily establishes the merits of plaintiff’s claim. For this reason, the Secretary’s assertion is without merit. AFFIRMED.

Hoyland v. McMenomy

185 F. Supp. 3d 1111 · District Court, D. Minnesota · May 5, 2016

Qualified immunity protects government officers from § 1983 liability “unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Thus, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on the basis that Hoy-land’s First Amendment right was not clearly established.

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.