Case law

Whiteru v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

258 F. Supp. 3d 175 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 2017

WMATA’s first argument—that there is no statute, regulation, or policy on point—is clearly unavailing. … rely on “SSOP 46 alone” to establish this standard.

Behrens v. Pelletier

516 U.S. 299 · Supreme Court of the United States · Feb 21, 1996

On the merits of the appeal, the court rejected the argument that petitioner enjoyed qualified immunity because he had not violated any “clearly established right.” … allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.

Williams v. Mayor & City Council

128 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 7, 1999

The Maryland case law establishes unequivocally that police officers in the course of their public duties are public officials within the contemplation of the qualified immunity law. … We hold that in enacting the immunity provision of Ch. 307 of the Acts of 1979, it clearly was not the legislative intent to diminish or to curtail in any way the qualified immunity otherwise enjoyed by a law enforcement

Conrad Noyola v. Texas Department of Human Resources

846 F.2d 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 15, 1988

Second, if the first amendment rights were not “clearly established” at the time Noyola was terminated, 1 Appellants may defend on the basis of qualified official immunity from suit. … Consequently, Appellants could not have violated any “clearly established constitutional rights,” and they are protected by qualified immunity from suit. III.

Brautigam v. Fraley

684 F. Supp. 2d 589 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 4, 2010

and official immunity and remain immune from suit except as the General Assembly shall specifically waive the immunity. … The court specifically distinguished the immunity for an employee of the Commonwealth versus the immunity conferred by statute upon the employee of a municipality: We note that the immunity defense provided by the General

Hollingsworth v. Hill

110 F.3d 733 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 4, 1997

Hollingsworth relies are not clearly established. Ms. Hollingsworth argues that Deputy Hill is not entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable person in Hill’s position would have known that entry into Ms. … Objective Reasonableness and Extraordinary Circumstances Once the plaintiff has established the inference that the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, a qualified immunity defense

Reynaldo Ramirez v. Jim Wells County, Texas

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 24, 2013

Because there was no false arrest, no constitutional violation occurred, and, accordingly, we have no occasion to reach the part of the qualified immunity analysis that asks whether the law was clearly established. … We have explained the ‘clearly established’ prong as follows: Qualified immunity should not be denied unless the law is clear in the more particularized sense that reasonable officials should be “on notice

David A. Connelly v. Comptroller of the Currency

876 F.2d 1209 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 7, 1989

We must address in turn whether any of these claims rests upon such clearly established law that the defendants have forfeited their qualified immunity from suit. … established as to abrogate the defendants’ qualified immunity.

Reynaldo Ramirez v. Jim Wells County, Texas

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 30, 2013

Because there was no false arrest, no constitutional violation occurred, and, accordingly, we have no occasion to reach the part of the qualified immunity analysis that asks whether the law was clearly established. … We have explained the ‘clearly established’ prong as follows: Qualified immunity should not be denied unless the law is clear in the more particularized sense that reasonable officials should be “on notice

Guerrero, Ulices v. O'Neil

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · May 8, 2023

O’Neil’s qualified immunity argument fails due to those factual disputes as well. See Taylor v. … City of Milford, 10 F.4th 800, 808 (7th Cir. 2021) (court should not grant summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds where “determining whether [defendant’s] violation of [plaintiff’s] rights was clearly established

Viilo v. Eyre

547 F.3d 707 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 27, 2008

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … immunity, and (2) the issue appealed concerned not which facts the parties might be able to prove, but rather whether or not those facts showed a violation of clearly established law.

Stasher v. City of Jackson, Mississippi

District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Sep 13, 2022

Unless the public official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, he is cloaked with qualified immunity. (citing Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)). … Lamar County Texas, 717 F.3d 410, 422-24 (5th Cir. 2013) (Qualified immunity extends to public officials “to the extent their conduct is objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law.”).

Forbes v. Township of Lower Merion

313 F.3d 144 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 11, 2002

For instance, we may "review whether the set of facts identified by the district court is sufficient to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right," but we may not "consider whether the district court … a violation of a clearly established constitutional right," Ziccardi, 288 F.3d at 61 , but based on the District Court's spare comments in denying the defendants' summary-judgment motion, we are hard pressed to carry out

Sudah v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 25, 2025

And if he fails to show that his asserted right was clearly established after a defendant officer asserts qualified immunity, courts properly grant the officer’s motion to dismiss. E.g., Turpin v. Ray, 319 F. … Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal of a complaint on qualified-im- munity grounds when the plaintiff had not shown that the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the purported violation).

Peter I. Diamondstone v. Christopher A. MacAluso Leroy Prior, David R. Stanton, A. James Walton, Jr., and State of Vermont

148 F.3d 113 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 22, 1998

Qualified Immunity i. … Even “[w]here a right is clearly established, ‘the defendants may nonetheless establish immunity by showing that reasonable persons in their position would not have understood that their conduct was within the scope of the

Anthony Novak v. City of Parma, Ohio

33 F.4th 296 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 29, 2022

Qualified immunity protects state officers against section 1983 claims unless (1) “they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time” … So to prevail on his claim, Novak must show it was clearly established that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him. Because he hasn’t done so, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Stanley v. Gallegos

852 F.3d 1210 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 17, 2017

. § 1291 , the panel reverses and remands to the district court for farther consideration of whether Defendant violated clearly established federal law or is instead entitled to qualified immunity. I. … The Court reiterated that qualified immunity may be overcome “only by showing that [the federal rights in question] were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.” Id. at 197, 104 S.Ct. 3012 .

Bracken v. Okura

955 F. Supp. 2d 1138 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Jun 24, 2013

“Qualified immunity entitles [police officers] not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation’ on [a constitutional] claim, provided their conduct did not violate a clearly established federal right.” … to qualified immunity.

McEvoy v. Spencer

124 F.3d 92 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 11, 1997

Qualified Immunity The defense of qualified immunity shields government agents “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … A defendant pleading qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss is entitled to prevail if the allegations in the complaint fail to “state a claim of violation of clearly established law.” Behrens v.

John Witherow v. Lea Baker

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 18, 2021

not clearly established. … B In considering what constitutes “clearly established” law for purposes of qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has taken a narrow approach.