Case law

Annie Roberto v. Ricardo J. Bordallo and David L.G. Shimizu

839 F.2d 573 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 11, 1988

The district court agreed that her forced resignation violated her clearly established statutory rights and that qualified immunity did not protect the appellants. … There is no question that if the plaintiff clearly was a classified employee, the appellants’ actions violated her well-established rights and a qualified immunity claim is of no avail.

Harris v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

48 F. Supp. 3d 1025 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Sep 15, 2014

Qualified Immunity: Baker and Simmons “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 … Defendants assert that Baker and Simmons are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Stapleton v. Lozano

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 14, 2025

a violation of clearly-established law.” … A state official is entitled to qualified immunity 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.

Steplight v. Belpulsi

76 Ohio App. 3d 384 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 1991

Pursuant to Harlow , a person is immune from liability if he or she acts in such a way that the action does not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. … The court restated *390 the purpose of the qualified immunity rule in Anderson v.

Slough v. Telb

644 F. Supp. 2d 978 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 14, 2009

Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit for civil damages so long as their- conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … No clearly established constitutional right was violated by Defendants entry into Plaintiffs home. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in entering Plaintiffs home. b.

Tracy Ray Vaughan, and Mark Koch, Donald Nelson, and Mark Osborne v. James Ricketts

950 F.2d 1464 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 13, 1991

Qualified immunity is available to government officials if they could reasonably have thought that their actions were lawful in light of the clearly established law and the information they possessed. Anderson v. … By 1984, it was clearly established that the Fourth Amendment requires that rectal *1469 searches in prisons be conducted with reasonable cause and in a reasonable manner. Bell v.

Newsome v. Lee County, Ala.

431 F. Supp. 2d 1189 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 15, 2006

The decisions of the Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the highest court in the state in which the case arose provide the case law capable of clearly establishing the boundaries of rights in the qualified immunity … Once these elements have been satisfactorily demonstrated, “there is simply no room for a qualified immunity defense” because “the use of force ‘maliciously and sadistically to cause harm’ is clearly established to be a violation

Baddour, Inc. And Bmc Sales, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees-Appellants v. United States of America, Michael E. Posey

802 F.2d 801 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 17, 1986

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 (emphasis added). … In this case and on these facts the plaintiff clearly has not done so. 3 Were Baddour’s failure to overcome Posey’s qualified immunity defense not enough, the damages suit against Posey could have been dismissed for failure

Brockinton v. City of Sherwood

503 F.3d 667 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 4, 2007

Qualified immunity protects governmental officials from liability for civil damages when they are performing discretionary functions and their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … “[T]o withstand a motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, a civil rights plaintiff must (1) assert a violation of a constitutional right; (2)demonstrate that the alleged right is clearly established; and

William Brinsdon v. McAllen Independent Sch Dist

832 F.3d 519 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 9, 2016

To establish that qualified immunity does not apply, Brinsdon must prove that Santos or Cavazos (1) “violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged … On the compelled speech claim, the district court granted summary judgment to Santos and Cavazos under step two of the qualified immunity inquiry, that is, no clearly established right was violated.

Ramirez v. United States

81 F. Supp. 2d 532 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 4, 2000

“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim for violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal.” Mitchell v. … contrary to established law that they are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Cooper v. Whatcom County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 11, 2023

Because of the 2 particularized nature of the qualified immunity analysis, Plaintiffs must establish that “the 3 violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established” for each of the individual Whatcom 4 Deputies … Jefferson fails to establish the objective deliberate indifference standard as a matter of law, 6 so each one is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Dkt. No. 134 at 14–17.

Marshall v. Walker

958 F. Supp. 359 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 27, 1997

Qualified immunity applies “if a reasonable officer could have believed [plaintiffs arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.” Hunter v. … Qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry: whether the law was clearly established and, if so, whether the conduct was objectively reasonable. Eversole, 59 F.3d at 717 ; Biddle v.

In Re El Comandante Management Co., LLC

358 B.R. 1 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 10, 2006

Qualified Immunity. … The “clearly established rights” standard makes the defense of qualified immunity a difficult basis for a motion to dismiss. Walton v. Watts, 185 B.R. 963 , 969 n. 5 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.1995).

Porter v. Ascension Parish School Board

393 F.3d 608 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 10, 2004

challenged state action was unconstitutional.”13 Even if we find that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, however, a defendant will still be entitled to qualified immunity if … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987); Barrow, 332 F.3d at 846 (second question in qualified immunity analysis is whether the “constitutional right was clearly established when the violation supposedly occured”). 13

Paige v. Coyner

867 F. Supp. 2d 975 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 29, 2012

Qualified Immunity Defendants next urge the Court to find that Defendant Coyner is entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendants assert that Coyner is entitled to immunity because Plaintiff has not shown that the constitutional right she claims was violated was clearly established at the time (doc. 39).

Knapper v. Connick

681 So. 2d 944 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Oct 15, 1996

Distinguishing between absolute immunity, which will defeat a suit at the outset, and qualified immunity, which depends on circumstances and motivations which often must be established by evidence at trial, the Court concluded … But the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor's immunity would disserve the broader public interest.

Green River District Health Deparment v. Wigginton

764 S.W.2d 475 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1989

Our Court held that the purchase of indemnifying insurance by the governmental entity, per se, did not establish a right to sue the governmental entity which was otherwise immune. … We held that “the statute clearly contemplates a limited waiver of governmental immunity to the extent of the insurance coverage.” Id. at 40 .

Diruzza v. County of Tehama

206 F.3d 1304 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 21, 2000

The district court further held, in the alternative, that individual defendants Heard and Floyd were entitled to qualified immunity because they had not violated a clearly established right. … For purposes of determining qualified immunity, the law must be clearly established at the time of the defendant’s acts. In this case, the alleged retaliation occurred in 1995.

Fishman v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 13, 2025

Qualified Immunity All defendants assert qualified immunity. … Therefore, if defendants wish to avail themselves of qualified immunity, they cannot have violated a constitutional right that is clearly established. See id.