Case law

Estate of Young v. Martin

70 F. App'x 256 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 2003

of clearly established law.” … Thus, it is taught that the “threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether [the] plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.” 1 Hope v.

Ramos v. Carbajal

508 F. Supp. 2d 905 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 31, 2007

When a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who must establish: (i) that the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (ii) that the constitutional right violated was clearly … , the Court believes that Rodriguez would still be entitled to qualified immunity, because, in the context of this case, the proper application of clearly established law to the facts is unclear.

Donahoe v. Arpaio

869 F. Supp. 2d 1020 · District Court, D. Arizona · Apr 9, 2012

. § 1983 , 11 qualified immunity protects a government official from suit where that official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … of free speech rights [is] violative” of clearly established law).

Hubbard v. Taylor

452 F. Supp. 2d 533 · District Court, D. Delaware · Sep 20, 2006

“Qualified immunity shields state officials from suit where their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Id. (quoting Harlow v. … If the court concludes that the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, then it must deny the defendant the protection afforded by qualified immunity. Id.

Solis-Alarcon v. United States

432 F. Supp. 2d 236 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 17, 2006

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability for money damages when their conduct does not violate “clearly established” statutory authority or con *246 stitutional … understand that the challenged conduct violated the clearly established right at issue.

Cozzo v. Tangipahoa Parish Council-President Government

279 F.3d 273 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 10, 2002

They maintain that they are entitled to qualified immunity from Ms. Cozzo’s claims because interpretation of the TRO to require her eviction was clearly within Captain People’s discretionary authority. … Cozzo clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, we are required to address only the second pro ng of the qualified immunity test, that is, whether Deputy Joiner’s actions were objectively reasonable.

S&M Brands, Inc. v. Stein

2018 NCBC 26 · North Carolina Business Court · Apr 2, 2018

Plaintiff established an Escrow Fund and has made yearly payments into its Escrow Fund since the NC Qualifying Statute was enacted in 1999. … its immunity from suit.”

Hegarty v. Somerset County

848 F. Supp. 257 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 23, 1994

Qualified Immunity All Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The standard for qualified immunity is that “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Foster v. Missouri Department of Health & Senior Services

736 F.3d 759 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 13, 2013

was clearly established at the time of the defendant's alleged misconduct." … We conclude that placing Essie Foster on the disqualification list in these circumstances was not a deprivation of the Fosters' clearly established due process rights and that Hansen and Watkins are thus entitled to qualified

Chadwell v. Brewer

59 F. Supp. 3d 756 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Oct 2, 2014

“Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal capacity liability for civil damages under § 1983, ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … was “clearly established” when the violation occurred.

Dukore v. District of Columbia

799 F.3d 1137 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 25, 2015

. 3 The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles officers to immunity from suit unless their conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the right in question was not clearly established, we need not broach the question of whether a constitutional violation occurred because the officers are entitled to qualified immunity regardless.

Sampson v. City of Schenectady

160 F. Supp. 2d 336 · District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 16, 2001

Qualified Immunity 1. … General Standard for Qualified Immunity The affirmative defense of qualified immunity “shields public officials from liability for their discretionary acts that do ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

CHABAK v. Monroy

65 Cal. Rptr. 3d 641 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 10, 2007

This immunity is absolute for mandated reporters and qualified for other individuals who report child abuse (voluntary reporters). … Monroy’s statements to the police clearly arose from protected activity, as is established by the case on which Chabak, and ultimately the trial court, relied.

Holloman v. Walker County Board of Education

334 F. Supp. 2d 1286 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Jun 4, 2001

Qualified Immunity Defense Once a governmental actor interposes the defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff, in order to overcome it, must demonstrate that the defendant’s actions “violated clearly established statutory … been clearly established.

Trujillo v. Rio Arriba County ex rel. Rio Arriba County Sheriff's Department

319 F.R.D. 571 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 19, 2016

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

Sossamon v. LONE STAR STATE OF TEXAS

713 F. Supp. 2d 657 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Mar 28, 2007

The doctrine of qualified immunity affords protection against individual liability for civil damages to officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … With respect to a ruling on qualified immunity, the first question a court should address is “whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Siegert v.

Bliss v. Franco

446 F.3d 1036 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 25, 2006

right was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred.” … Trask satisfy their burdens under the first two prongs of qualified immunity analysis. Their allegations under the Fourth Amendment, if true, establish a constitutional violation.

Scott Furman Maxey, a Minor, by His Mother & Next Friend, Dianna Maxey v. Robert Fulton, Individually Julia Teska, Individually Harold E. Goldman, Individually Heriberto Martinez, Individually John Dentist, Individually John Doctor, Individually Jane Doctor, Individually, and James Borren, Individually, Joseph Donald Cole, by His Mother & Next Friend, Virginia Cole v. Robert Fulton, Individually Julia Teska, Individually Harold E. Goldman, Individually Luis A. Reinoso, Individually John Doctor, Individually Jane Doctor, Individually John Dentist, Individually, and James Borren, Individually

890 F.2d 279 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 29, 1989

The Court reasoned that a denial of qualified immunity is conclusive because the court is deciding either that (1) the defendant violated clearly established law and is not entitled to immunity, or (2) that if the facts are … Mitchell itself recognizes that there will be times when discovery is proper: 13 Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled

Brassell v. Turner

468 F. Supp. 2d 854 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Nov 15, 2006

A two-step approach is used to evaluate qualified immunity claims. … If the plaintiffs allegations could make out a constitutional violation, the court then asks “whether the right was clearly established — that is, whether ‘it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful

Hawkins v. Boone

786 F. Supp. 2d 328 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 23, 2011

“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 a reasonable person … In such a situation, they should not lose their qualified immunity. See Atherton v.