Case law

Daker v. Ferrero

506 F. Supp. 2d 1295 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Aug 24, 2007

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity provides “complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … As stated, in determining whether Defendants have qualified immunity, the Court determines (1) whether the plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation, and (2) whether the right was “clearly established

Breeden v. University of Mississippi Medical Center

241 F. Supp. 2d 668 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Sep 5, 2001

Under “qualified immunity,” government officials are not subject to liability for the performance of their discretionary actions unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The test for qualified immunity is understandably twofold. First, the court must determine whether the conduct alleged would have deprived a § 1983 plaintiff of a “clearly established” constitutional or statutory right.

McKay v. LaCroix

117 F.4th 741 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 23, 2024

They also asserted qualified immunity. … A state official is entitled qualified im- munity unless: (1) the plaintiff alleged a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) that right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. Cope v.

Johnson v. BOARD OF POLICE COM'RS

370 F. Supp. 2d 892 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Apr 27, 2005

To establish qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss, Defendant Warnecke must show that she is entitled to qualified immunity on the face of the complaint. Bradford v. … The second prong of the Saucier qualified immunity test requires the Court to consider whether the constitutional rights allegedly violated were "clearly established."

Flowers v. Bennett

135 F. Supp. 2d 1150 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Dec 11, 2000

Even without Hill, there is good reason to believe that “clearly established” authority exists to deny qualified immunity in this case. … In a qualified immunity analysis, two questions arise: (1) Does the plaintiff allege the deprivation of a constitutional right, and (2) Was the law that the public official is alleged to have violated clearly established

Kaufman v. Carter

952 F. Supp. 520 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Dec 9, 1996

I conclude that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that it was not “clearly established” that the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA apply to prisons. … Qualified immunity is not available where an official violates “clearly established statutory ... rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Lott v. Edenfield

542 F. App'x 311 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 3, 2013

Because the complaint fails to plead sufficient facts to establish that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to any clearly established rights, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … The plaintiffs now appeal, arguing that they adequately pleaded violations of clearly established Eighth Amendment rights sufficient to overcome qualified immunity.

Starks v. City of Minneapolis

6 F. Supp. 2d 1084 · District Court, D. Minnesota · May 14, 1998

Qualified immunity protects police officers from liability if a reasonable officer could have believed his or her conduct was lawful in light of clearly established law and the information possessed by the officers at the … “An official loses immunity if, first, the law he violated was clearly established at the time of the violation, and second, the applicability of the law to his particular action was evident.”

Watkins v. Millennium School

290 F. Supp. 2d 890 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 18, 2003

Qualified immunity extends to individuals performing discretionary functions, unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … In elaborating on “clearly established,” the Supreme Court stated in Anderson v.

Doe v. S & S Consolidated I.S.D.

149 F. Supp. 2d 274 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Jun 26, 2001

As the Siegert court noted, “[o]nce a defendant pleads ... qualified immunity, ‘[[o]]n summary judgment, [a court] may appropriately determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether the law was clearly established … Apart from Anderson’s admonition in the narrow qualified immunity context that “right[s][an] official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized ... sense,” Anderson notes too

Constance Westfall v. Jose Luna

903 F.3d 534 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 13, 2018

As is well-established, “qualified immunity means immunity from having to stand trial, not simply immunity from monetary liability.” Id. … “[I]t is clearly established that ‘a consent which waives Fourth Amendment rights may be limited, qualified, or withdrawn.’” Gates v. Tex.

Adams v. Glaser

138 F. Supp. 3d 727 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Oct 5, 2015

Individual Capacity—Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” 90 As explained by the United States. … Supreme Court, “qualified immunity seeks to ensure that defendants reasonably can anticipate when their conduct may give rise to liability.” 91 “In essence, qualified immunity “avoid[s] excessive disruption of government”

Dohner v. Neff

240 F. Supp. 2d 692 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 11, 2002

Qualified Immunity In Harlow v. … Qualified Immunity for Neff To find a clearly established constitutional right, a district court must find binding precedent from the Supreme Court, its court of appeals, or itself. Ohio Civil Serv. Employees Ass’n. v.

Brooke Somers v. Anthony Devine

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 24, 2025

Indeed, as a matter of constitutional avoidance, we often grant qualified immunity based on a determination “that the purported right was not clearly established without resolving the ‘often more difficult … Determining whether a right is “clearly established” cannot be done in isolation from the perceived facts of the case in which the immunity is claimed.

Perez v. School Board

917 F. Supp. 2d 1261 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 17, 2013

Furthermore, because the Defendants have raised qualified immunity as a defense, Plaintiff must allege that the officers violated a clearly-established right. Williams, 102 F.3d at 1182 . … When qualified immunity is raised, Plaintiff must plead facts showing that, at the time of the beating the law clearly established that the force used by the officers was excessive.

Danny M. Bennett v. Dennis Lee Hendrix

423 F.3d 1247 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 9, 2005

DISCUSSION Our procedure in assessing qualified immunity is well-established. … Clearly Established Law The final step in the qualified immunity inquiry is determining whether the law was clearly established so as to put the defendants on notice that their behavior violated the plaintiffs’

Woodcock v. City of Bowling Green

165 F. Supp. 3d 563 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Feb 24, 2016

Clearly Established Right Defendants, in their Motion for Summary Judgment, assert that Casada is entitled to qualified immunity. … The Pollard court did not address the qualified immunity inquiry of whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established. .

Pam Pino v. E.P. Higgs, Curt Faust, Marcella Wolf, Jim Naranjo, Harlan Weiss, Pablo Hernandez

75 F.3d 1461 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 5, 1996

Qualified immunity shields public officials from § 1983 liability if their actions did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … In other words, a party attempting to avoid summary judgment based on qualified immunity “is obliged to present facts which if true would constitute a violation of clearly established law.”

Waldrop v. Evans

681 F. Supp. 840 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Mar 15, 1988

The Harlow decision defined the limits of qualified immunity in objective terms and instructed courts to consider only whether the official’s conduct in question violated clearly established law. … of qualified immunity. 5 B.

Houston v. Partee

776 F. Supp. 1309 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 6, 1991

Now the other defendants named in the Fifth Amended Complaint — four police officers (collectively the “Officers”) — have moved to be dismissed on immunity grounds, this time under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Instead the question is whether the plaintiff had a clearly established right against that defendant, who had a correspondingly clearly established duty not to infringe that right.