Case law

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.”

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

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.”

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

Than Orn v. City of Tacoma

949 F.3d 1167 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 3, 2020

Turning to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, the panel held that plaintiff’s right to be free from the use of excessive force was clearly established at the time of the shooting. … B We turn next to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, which asks whether Orn’s right to be free from the use of excessive force was clearly established at the time of the shooting.

Lucas v. Swain County Board of Education

154 N.C. App. 357 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 3, 2002

Both affidavits established the Trust is not authorized and licensed to execute insurance contracts in this State and that it is not considered a qualified insurer as determined by the Department of Insurance. … Moreover, defendant established through three affidavits from Hale, Earley and Dunlap that the Trust is neither a licensed and authorized insurer, nor a qualified insurer as determined by the Department.

MLADEK v. Day

320 F. Supp. 2d 1373 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jun 7, 2004

Defendant Day is immune from suit in his individual capacity, unless he violated “ ‘clearly established law,’ which consists of statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person should have known.” Hutton v. … Mladek did not violate any clearly established constitutional right.

Bradway v. Town of Southampton

826 F. Supp. 2d 458 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 1, 2011

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants argue, in the alternative, that they are entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds with respect to the medical indifference claim under the Fourteenth Amendment … Tollaksen, 257 Fed.Appx. 400, 401 (2d Cir.2007) (explaining that government officers “are protected by qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established law, or it was objectively reasonable for them

Vacca v. Barletta

753 F. Supp. 400 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 12, 1990

Qualified Immunity Government officials who are not granted absolute immunity are entitled to qualified immunity from suit. … law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action occurred....

Linda A. Nelson, Paul R. Nelson, Evelyn Philbert, Laura Moore, and Charles Moore v. Denise Balazic, Dick Moore, and Bill Duncan

802 F.2d 1077 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 10, 1986

Having held that Balazic is only entitled to qualified immunity we must now determine whether her conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Even assuming arguendo that a constitutional right was violated, and we specifically do not address this issue, Balazic should be immune because such right was not clearly established at that time. See Martinez.

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.