Case law

Creighton v. Anderson

724 F. Supp. 654 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jul 14, 1989

Qualified immunity is designed to protect from liability government officials who perform discretionary functions "if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … First, a government official is immune from liability unless the constitutional right which has *658 allegedly been violated was "clearly established." Id.

Les Eckert and Aberdeen Insurance Services, Inc. v. Jose Montemayor, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of Insurance for the State of Texas and Texas Department of Insurance

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Mar 31, 2005

If we find an alleged violation of a constitutional right, we then consider if the right was “clearly established.” Id . … was “clearly established.”

State of Michigan v. Brandon McQueen

Michigan Supreme Court · Feb 8, 2013

’s immunity provision clearly contemplates that a registered qualifying patient’s medical use of marijuana only occur for the purpose of alleviating his own debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with his … they are clearly erroneous.31 A ruling is clearly erroneous “if the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake.”32 III.

Nichols v. Bourbon County Sheriff's Dept.

26 F. Supp. 3d 634 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jun 12, 2014

a clearly established constitutional right. … Sheriff Matthews is entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity. D.

Cassels v. Stalder

342 F. Supp. 2d 555 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Oct 20, 2004

First, it functions as a defense to liability when the actions allegedly taken by officials did not violate clearly established law. 32 If the law was not clearly established when officials acted, qualified immunity bars … the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; and, (2) if so, whether the defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in the light of the clearly established law at the time of

Jackson v. Jackson County

956 F. Supp. 1294 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Oct 10, 1995

In assessing a claim of qualified immunity, we engage in a bifurcated analysis. First, we determine whether the plaintiff has allege[d] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Accordingly, [u]n-less the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.

Pearlie Gambrel v. Knox Cnty., Ky.

25 F.4th 391 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 8, 2022

Even so, our caselaw did not clearly establish that the Officers acted unconstitutionally when using this force. Since we may address the two-part qualified-immunity test in either order, see Pearson v. … This conclusion leads to the second qualified-immunity question: Even under Gambrel’s version of events, would Ashurst’s shooting violate clearly established law?

Jones v. Banks

892 F. Supp. 988 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 24, 1995

Qualified Immunity Banks’ second argument, that he is entitled to summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity, is equally unavailing. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Min Li v. Qi Jiang

38 F. Supp. 3d 870 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 13, 2014

Defendants assert that Li has failed to show that the right in question was “clearly established” as required to defeat a qualified immunity defense. ECF No. 4 at 12. … The qualified immunity defense “shields governmental officials performing discretionary functions [ ] insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Commonwealth v. Scott

503 Pa. 624 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1983

When the Commonwealth refused to grant immunity, the trial court found that although it did not have the power to grant judicial immunity to Hill, a new trial was warranted based on the contents of the unsworn post-trial … When dissecting a double hearsay statement, the reliability and trustworthiness of each declarant must be independently established.

Johnson v. County of Los Angeles

340 F.3d 787 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 15, 2003

City of Bremerton, 268 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir.2001). 1 I In Saucier, the Supreme Court established a two-step evaluation of qualified immunity. … His use of force was objectively reasonable and he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Derrick Maye v. Paul Klee

915 F.3d 1076 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 14, 2019

We review orders denying qualified immunity de novo, Stoudemire v. … The second step of the qualified immunity analysis requires us to look to whether the officials’ acts violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Alvarado v. City of New York

482 F. Supp. 2d 341 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 26, 2007

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AND ALVARADO’S UNLAWFUL SEARCH CLAIM Alvarado argues that the Court should not have dismissed his unlawful search claim on qualified immunity grounds as a material factual dispute remained regarding the … Only Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent existing at the time of the alleged violation is relevant in deciding whether a right is clearly established.”).

Pennycuff v. McNutt

95 F. Supp. 3d 1325 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 5, 2015

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that plaintiffs 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim should be dismissed because they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “When a defendant pleads qualified immunity, the plaintiff has the heavy burden of establishing: (1) that the defendant’s actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the right violated was clearly

Mutter v. Sanders

611 F. Supp. 2d 837 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · May 4, 2009

immunity because their alleged conduct was not clearly established to be violative of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. … Qualified immunity (1) The Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to the federal claims included in Count 1 of the complaint because it was not clearly established that Sanders violated the Plaintiffs

Mowbray v. Kozlowski

724 F. Supp. 404 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Oct 25, 1989

Under Harlow , state officials are protected by qualified immunity if the conduct complained of by the plaintiffs "did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should … Qualified immunity is " immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like absolute immunity it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial."

Kovats v. Rutgers

633 F. Supp. 1469 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 24, 1986

The Third Circuit recently reviewed the ambiguities of Harlow’s “clearly established” requirement. In People of Three Mile Island v. … The state of the law was therefore clearly established at the time of plaintiffs’ termination. Defendants should have related Perry and Roth to the instant situation. Hicks v.

Sanchez v. Nunemaker

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 23, 2026

and that defeat a qualified immunity defense with equal specificity.” … Clearly Established Law We next address whether the constitutional right in question was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Harmon, 16 F.4th at 1163.

Kwai Fun Wong v. United States

373 F.3d 952 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 25, 2004

The qualified immunity defense “ ‘shield[s] [government agents] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Whether the Law Was Clearly Established Even where a constitutional violation has occurred, whether an official asserting qualified immunity may be held liable “generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the

Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Ault

256 U.S. 554 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 1, 1921

The company is clearly, not answerable in the present action if the ordinary principles of common-law liability are to. be applied. … Whatever name be applied, the element of punishment clearly predominates and Congress has not given its consent that suits of this character be brought against the United' States.