Case law

Pearson v. Shriners Hospitals

133 F.4th 433 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 2, 2025

immunity because the Former Employees have failed to cite a clearly established right. … Nonetheless, the Commissioner is entitled to qualified immunity because the Former Employees’ claims against her are not based on clearly established law. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009).

Porterfield v. Lott

156 F.3d 563 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 22, 1998

not violate clearly established rights of which a reason- able person would have known." … Officials lose the protection of the immunity if they vio- late a constitutional or statutory right of the plaintiff and the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation such that an objectively reasonable

Federman v. County of Kern

61 F. App'x 438 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 15, 2003

If a constitutional right would have been violated were a plaintiffs allegations established, the next step is to ask whether the right was clearly established in light of the context of the case. Id. … Next, the law on excessive force was clearly established by April 21, 1998, the day Federman was shot and killed.

Hart v. Artus

District Court, W.D. New York · Jul 16, 2021

Next, Plaintiffs contend that qualified immunity does not apply to any of the defendants, since the constitutional rights which Plaintiffs allege were violated were all clearly established, such that a reasonable defendant … Officers are entitled to qualified immunity “unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the

John Burns v. Brad Cole

18 F.4th 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 29, 2021

-4-  “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … “Qualified immunity analysis requires a two-step inquiry: (1) whether the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the

Gomez Candelaria v. Rivera Rodríguez

218 F. Supp. 2d 66 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 25, 2002

The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit and liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable … Accordingly, they argue that Defendants are not immune from liability since their unconstitutional actions occurred when the law regarding patronage dismissals was “clearly established”.

State Board of Chiropractic Examiners v. Stjernholm

935 P.2d 959 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Apr 7, 1997

When only qualified immunity applies and the suit is for damages, a section 1983 claim must allege violation of a clearly established constitutional right and material facts of misconduct, under circumstances which reveal … To withstand a motion for summary judgment in the qualified immunity context, violation of a clearly established constitutional right 15 and material facts of misconduct must be pleaded.

Ambrose v. Coffey

696 F. Supp. 2d 1109 · District Court, E.D. California · Dec 24, 2009

Whether Weydert and Coffey are Entitled to Qualified Immunity. 6 1. Grounds for Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that MUAs are legal. … Weydert and Coffey are “entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show” their actions *1115 violated the Constitution. Pearson v.

Lanigan v. Village of East Hazel Crest

913 F. Supp. 1202 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 26, 1996

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials ... from damages unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Elder v. … Additionally, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields all three officers because their conduct was not unreasonable in light of clearly established law at that time.

Batten v. Gomez

324 F.3d 288 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 24, 2003

suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … We have reviewed this claim and agree with the district court that Shuster and Gomez are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because Shuster and Gomez violated no clearly established right held by Brittany.

Dale E. Kraus and Rosetta M. Kraus, Husband and Wife Cindy D. Kraus, Individually and Todd W. Montgomery, Individually v. County of Pierce

793 F.2d 1105 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 17, 1986

The Supreme Court has noted, however, that qualified immunity “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability____” Mitchell v. … According to the test for qualified immunity established by the Supreme Court, the deputies in this case are immune from liability (and trial) if “their conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

BALLHEIMER v. BATTS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 20, 2020

The qualified immunity analysis poses two questions: (1) whether a defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the 11 This determination hinges on the assumption that … If the warrant was not properly procured, the Officers cannot find protection under qualified immunity for violating Ballheimer’s clearly established right against a warrantless, intrusive medical search. Winston v.

Erskine v. Commissioner of Corrections

682 A.2d 681 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 15, 1996

In their answer, the defendants raised the affirmative defenses of sovereign and qualified immunity, M.R.Civ.P. 8(c). … Despite their knowledge of Robinson’s violent nature, the defendants are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity for purposes of section 1983 liability.

Mendez v. City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 20, 2024

violated his Fourth Amendment right or that they violated a clearly established right. … Davis, 878 F.3d 226, 234 (7th Cir. 2017) (finding that case that was decided four months after events in question could not clearly establish any rights for the purposes of qualified immunity); Reynolds v.

Passatempo v. McMenimen

458 Mass. 1007 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 14, 2010

The court did not expressly address the qualified immunity issue. Id. The defendant appealed. Id. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit did not reach the qualified immunity issue as to the first set of claims. 7 Id. at 303-304 . … He may, as we twice clearly indicated in McMenimen I, pursue the immunity issues as a matter of right in *1010 his direct appeal. Id. at 187 & 193 n.13, citing Littles, supra at 880 .

Habiger v. City of Fargo

905 F. Supp. 709 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Jan 23, 1995

“Qualified immunity protects a government official *717 from suit if, at the time of the challenged acts, it was not clearly established that those actions would violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person … For purposes of qualified immunity, a right is clearly established if a reasonable official would understand that his or her conduct violates that particular right because the contours of the right are sufficiently clear.

Bryson v. Gonzales

534 F.3d 1282 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 28, 2008

defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … The only issues that properly belong in an interlocutory appeal for qualified immunity are the existence of a constitutional violation and whether it was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s conduct.

Goff v. Bise

173 F.3d 1068 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 6, 1999

the alleged right is clearly established; and (3) raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official would have known that his alleged conduct would have violated [the] plaintiff's clearly established right. 14 Habiger … Both of these claims allege violations of constitutional rights that were clearly established at the time of the August 12 arrest. See Guite v.

Dudley v. Angel

209 F.3d 460 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 25, 2000

Therefore, Dudley must overcome the defendants’ claims of qualified immunity, by first showing a violation of clearly established federal rights. Sorenson v. … The first step of the qualified immunity analysis is subdivided into three questions: (1) whether a constitutional violation is alleged; (2) whether the law regarding the alleged violation was clearly established at the

Jarovits v. Monroe County Children & Youth Services

345 F. App'x 784 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 21, 2009

The Bayer Court held that “under the ‘clearly established’ prong of the Saucier test, defendants should be afforded qualified immunity with respect to [the plaintiffs’ procedural due process] claim.” … qualified immunity.