Case law

López-Quiñones v. Puerto Rico National Guard

526 F.3d 23 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 21, 2008

Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 , 100 S.Ct. 1287 , 63 L.Ed.2d 574 (1980), and that in any event, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because any such protection was not clearly established at the time of Lopez’ termination … Still remaining is the question whether his status was clearly established at the time of his termination.

Burgess v. West

817 F. Supp. 1520 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 25, 1993

To summarize, public officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … -Once the defendant has successfully raised the qualified immunity defense, plaintiff must come “forward with facts or allegations to show both that the defendants’ alleged conduct violated the law and that the law was clearly

Evans v. City of Zebulon

351 F.3d 485 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 18, 2003

Stephens is entitled to qualified immunity, however, because as of January 22, 1999, the law was not clearly established that an arrestee could not constitutionally be strip searched under the conditions alleged. … Only decisions of the Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the highest court of the relevant state clearly establish the law for purposes of qualified immunity. Marsh, 268 F.3d at 1032 n. 10. .

Branch International Services, Inc. v. Budde

890 F. Supp. 659 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jun 15, 1995

Alleging the violation of a broad constitutional right is insufficient to establish the violation of a clearly established right for purposes of overcoming qualified immunity. … Plaintiffs argue, in their response to defendants’ motion to dismiss, that the right to access to courts was a clearly established constitutional right, and therefore the qualified immunity defense is not applicable to this

Leibowitz v. CITY OF MINEOLA, TEX.

660 F. Supp. 2d 775 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Oct 2, 2009

Qualified Immunity Bittner asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is intended to shield government officials from liability for monetary damages for acts in the performance of discretionary functions that were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law

Lee v. Mihalich

847 F.2d 66 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 17, 1988

In furtherance of these policies, the discriminant for qualified immunity focuses on the objective legal reasonableness of an official's acts under law which has been clearly established at the time he acts. … the violation of clear law needed to supply the malice element of the constitutional tort. 11 A government official will be denied qualified immunity for having violated a clearly established right when "in the light of

Vega, Alfredo v. Anderson

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Sep 24, 2020

Summary judgment to defendants would be required under the doctrine of qualified immunity. See D.C. v. Wesby, 138 S. … Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (Government officials entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability in lawsuit unless conduct violated federal statutory or constitutional right and unlawfulness of conduct was “clearly established

Fisher v. Moore

62 F.4th 912 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 16, 2023

The school officials sought dismissal on qualified-immunity grounds, arguing that the state-created danger doctrine was not clearly established in this circuit when the underlying events occurred. … “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

Nahinu v. Naso

District Court, D. Hawaii · Mar 30, 2023

Police officers and other state actors may be entitled to qualified immunity. See District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. … statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was “clearly established at the time.”).

Brindley v. Best

192 F.3d 525 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 22, 1999

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional … clearly established rights.

Dawkins v. Graham

50 F.3d 532 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 14, 1995

Qualified immunity does not shield the officers from a lawsuit for damages if a reasonable officer would have known the officers’ actions violated clearly established law. Hummel-Jones v. … First, the law prohibiting the officers’ conduct was clearly established at the time of the raid.

Campbell v. Sumner

587 F. Supp. 376 · District Court, D. Nevada · Jun 11, 1984

Prison officials have qualified immunity from monetary liability under *380 § 1983. Procunier v. Navarette, supra, 434 U.S. at 561 , 98 S.Ct. at 859 . … Not only was the law not clearly established in June of 1982, when the envelope from the FBI arrived at the prison, it still isn’t clearly established in the Ninth Circuit.

Avilés v. Figueroa

195 F. Supp. 3d 435 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 16, 2016

Qualified Immunity Lastly, this Court how moves to consider whether Co-Defendant Martinez-Ortiz is protected by qualified immunity. The qualified immunity doctrine offers public officials complete immunity from suit. … In order to *449 grant qualified immunity, the First Circuit has clearly laid out a two-step process in which the court must engage: The two-step procedure for assessing a plea of qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss

Pinnock v. City of New Haven

553 F. Supp. 2d 130 · District Court, D. Connecticut · May 14, 2008

“If the right at issue was not clearly established by then existing precedent, then qualified immunity shields the defendant. … Even if the right at issue was clearly established in certain respects, however, an officer is still entitled to qualified immunity if ‘officers of reasonable competence could disagree’ on the legality of the action at issue

Sanford v. Russell

381 F. Supp. 3d 905 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · May 15, 2019

Fabrication of Evidence Claim The defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiff's fabricated evidence claim because their conduct did not violate any clearly established law at the time of … Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, "the plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established." McDonald v.

Joseph De Ritis v. Thomas McGarrigle

861 F.3d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 29, 2017

not “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. … Here, addressing both prongs of qualified immunity, the District Court concluded that Roger had violated De Ritis’s right to free speech and that the right, as defined by the District Court, was clearly established.

James McKinney v. Richland County Sheriff's Department Roy Livingston, Richland County Sheriff Department Sheriff of Richland County

431 F.3d 415 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 12, 2005

Livingston moved for summary judgment below on grounds of qualified immunity, but that motion was denied. … Livingston moved for summary judgment, claiming that he was entitled to qualified immunity.

Doe v. City of Miami Gardens

389 F. Supp. 3d 1118 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Apr 9, 2019

Qualified Immunity Framework Qualified immunity "offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as 'their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional … The Supreme Court recognizes the "longstanding principle that clearly established law should not be defined at a high level of generality...Otherwise, plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity into

Sauls v. Montgomery County

18 S.W.3d 310 · Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · May 18, 2000

Therefore, in view of the confusion regarding the terms, “official immunity” and “qualified immunity,” it is not clear from the record that appellees presented the affirmative defense of “qualified immunity” to the trial … Thus, we do not consider the merit of “qualified immunity” as a ground for summary judgment in favor of Williams, individually.

Leiser v. Moore

903 F.3d 1137 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 6, 2018

The defense of qualified immunity “shields public officials from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” … We can resolve this appeal by considering only the clearly-established prong of the qualified- immunity defense. See Bowling v.