Case law

Vinson v. Clarke County, Ala.

10 F. Supp. 2d 1282 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Jun 17, 1998

or qualified immunity. … Furthermore, in assessing qualified immunity in this case, the court notes that the “[l]aw is clearly established by holdings, not by inferences from language in opinions.” Belcher, 30 F.3d at 1400 .

Moran v. City of New Rochelle

346 F. Supp. 2d 507 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 16, 2004

In accordance with the doctrine of qualified .immunity, government officials are shielded from liability flowing from their performance of discretionary functions as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established … Qualified Immunity for Robert Bongiorni and Karl Cacciola Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Petta v. Rivera

133 F.3d 330 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 16, 1998

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). 12 We must take care to identify the relevant "clearly established law" at the proper level of generality so that the defense of qualified immunity … Regarding the applicability of qualified immunity, we merely observed that "[u]se of excessive force in making an arrest violates clearly established rights, and the doctrine of qualified immunity therefore does not shield

Tamez v. City of San Marcos

118 F.3d 1085 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 1997

"clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … Because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, the defendant must both plead and establish his entitlement to immunity. Gomez v.

Anderson v. City of West Bend Police Department

774 F. Supp. 2d 925 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Feb 28, 2011

Public officials performing discretionary functions are generally entitled to qualified immunity and are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Although qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, the burden of defeating an assertion of qualified immunity rests with the plaintiff. Spiegel, 196 F.3d at 723 ; Clash v.

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.

Landy v. Irizarry

884 F. Supp. 788 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 5, 1995

To be entitled to qualified immunity, a police officer must establish facts satisfying one of two tests: “either that his conduct did not violate ‘clearly established rights’ of which a reasonable person would have known, … , do not violate clearly established rights of which they should have known.

Reitz v. County of Bucks

125 F.3d 139 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 8, 1997

To analyze a defense of qualified immunity, we must ascertain whether the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, and,we must also decide whether under the existing law an officer reasonably could … In this case, the district court determined that the prosecutors did not act in violation of any clearly established statutory or constitutional law and thus dismissed the claim on the grounds of qualified immunity- Although

Dunn v. Village of Put-In-Bay

291 F. Supp. 2d 647 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 4, 2003

was clearly established at the time that the injury occurred. … The Village and Township, therefore, are entitled to qualified immunity. E.

Turner v. Martire

99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 587 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 14, 2000

are immune unless their conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Scope of authority In addition to establishing that they qualify as tribal officials for immunity purposes, defendants must satisfy the second requirement for tribal official immunity, i.e., that the official must have acted

Rudi Acosta Alma Acosta v. City and County of San Francisco Daniel Yawczak

83 F.3d 1143 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 18, 1996

Qualified Immunity Determining whether a law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity involves the .consideration of two questions: “1) Was the law governing the officer’s conduct clearly established? … hold that Yawczak is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Price v. University of Alabama

318 F. Supp. 2d 1084 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Oct 23, 2003

One clear aspect of this issue is that neither the requirement for the due process nor the type of process required was “clearly established” and so qualified immunity would shield Witt from Price’s claims. … Even if the statements were stigmatizing, qualified immunity would protect Witt unless his conduct constituted a violation of a “clearly established right.”

Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society

45 Cal. App. 4th 163 · California Court of Appeal · May 8, 1996

would violate a clearly established constitutional *178 or statutory right. … Further, an officer’s unreasonable ignorance that he has violated a clearly established right does not save his claim of qualified immunity. (Gilker v. Baker (9th Cir. 1978) 576 F.2d 245, 247 ; Coleman v.

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.

Toth v. City of Dothan, Ala.

953 F. Supp. 1502 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 6, 1996

Both Hadden and Ingram claim they are immune from suit under the well-established doctrine of qualified immunity. … Thus, in following the framework established in Siegert , the court must first establish whether the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation before delving into the qualified immunity analysis. See Tinney v.

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.

Bamont v. Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

163 F. Supp. 3d 138 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2016

analyzing qualified immunity under Saucier v. … established.” 50 Based on our analysis, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for Bamont’s claims in Counts I & II. ii.

Bapat v. Connecticut Department of Health Services

815 F. Supp. 525 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 29, 1992

Even where the contours of the plaintiffs federal rights are clearly established at the time of the defendant’s acts, “the defendant may enjoy qualified immunity if it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his … immunity is whether the right alleged to have been violated was “clearly established.”

Torres v. Grunkmeyer

601 F. Supp. 1043 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Feb 1, 1985

The Court would further note that if such actions were entitled to legislative immunity, legislators and their staffs would be free to violate clearly established rights and privileges with impunity, something the Speech … Plaintiff seeks a directed verdict on the qualified immunity question.

Rich v. Erie County Department of Human Resources

106 Ohio App. 3d 88 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 1995

Qualified immunity may not be asserted as a defense to an action alleging the failure of a public official to perform ministerial acts. (Scot Lad Foods, Inc. v. … It draws a distinction between ministerial and discretionary duties, and between absolute and qualified immunity.