Case law

ESTATE OF GAITHER EX REL. GAITHER v. District of Columbia

655 F. Supp. 2d 69 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2009

Legal Standard for Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … the officer’s conduct clearly violated established law.”

CUEBAS v. Davila

618 F. Supp. 2d 124 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 31, 2009

Defendant Burgos’s right to qualified immunity The defense of qualified immunity shields “public officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Therefore, the first step to ascertain if Burgos is entitled to a defense of qualified immunity is whether Plaintiffs’ allegations claim a violation of clearly established law.

Longoria v. State of Texas

473 F.3d 586 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 21, 2006

DISCUSSION Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Officer Glass’s conduct thus did not violate clearly established law at the time of the attack and entitled her to qualified immunity. C.

Millender v. County of Los Angeles

564 F.3d 1143 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 6, 2009

If the answer to the first inquiry is yes, the second inquiry is whether the right was clearly established: in other words, “whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation … The district court’s denial of qualified immunity is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED with instructions to grant Detective Messerschmidt and Sergeant Lawrence qualified immunity on the challenged scope of the warrant. .

Bosteder v. City of Renton

117 P.3d 316 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 28, 2005

This suggests the law was clearly established at the time the current warrant was sought and the defendants would not have been entitled to qualified immunity. … However, I disagree the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they did not violate a "clearly established" right.

Jeffrey Davis v. Bim Lowers

132 F. App'x 302 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 23, 2005

Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).2 Qualified immunity protects from liability government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The burden then shifts to Davis to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate. The threshold inquiry is whether Davis’s allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation. Id.

Joann Cavalieri, as Plenary Guardian of the Estate of Steven Cavalieri, a Disabled Person v. Donald Shepard

321 F.3d 616 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 20, 2003

asserting was not clearly established at the time of these events. … Ryan, 957 F.2d 402, 406 (7th Cir.1992), was clearly established prior to 1998.

Lewis v. City of Edmond

48 F.4th 1193 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 16, 2022

immunity.” … immunity, Plaintiffs have the burden of demonstrating the constitutional violation was clearly established on the date of the incident, April 29, 2019. 2 See Estate of Smart v.

Kitt v. Bailey

676 F. App'x 350 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 14, 2017

Because McCreary invoked the defense of qualified immunity, Kitt must also negate that defense by pleading facts to show a violation of a right that was clearly established at the time of the incident and that, in light of … that clearly established law, the defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonable.

Pribula v. Wyoming Area School District

599 F. Supp. 2d 564 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2009

Qualified Immunity “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 rights of which … Each of the individual Defendants in this case is entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Anderson v.

Allen Hopkins, Cross-Appellant v. John E. Stice and Texas Dept. Of Corrections, John E. Stice, Cross-Appellee

916 F.2d 1029 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 11, 1990

Hopkins must persuade that Stice deprived him of a protectible property or liberty interest without due process of law, and, because Stice as a public official is protected by qualified immunity, that Stice violated a clearly … Public officials are, of course, immune from liability unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory norm, a question not necessarily answered by the certainty of the legal rule.

Prisma Zona Exploratoria De Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Calderon

154 F. Supp. 2d 245 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 14, 2001

Defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss based on Eleventh Amendment immunity and qualified immunity grounds. The motion to dismiss stands submitted. … Determination of whether a reasonable official should have understood that a specific conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, or whether an entity is to be considered an “arm of the state”, are fact intensive

Dormu v. District of Columbia

795 F. Supp. 2d 7 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 7, 2011

If no constitutional right was violated, qualified immunity is appropriate. Id. … Under the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, the officers would nonetheless be immune from suit if Dormu’s Fourth Amendment rights were not clearly established at the time of the arrest.

Weldeyohannes v. State of Washington

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 19, 2025

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages unless their conduct objectively violates clearly established rights. Harlow v. … impact whether the “unlawfulness . . . was clearly established at the time,” we reverse and remand the determinations of qualified immunity. 6 Id.

Hobart v. City of Stafford

784 F. Supp. 2d 732 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 29, 2011

Officials sued in their individual capacities are protected by qualified immunity unless the act violates a constitutional right clearly established at the time. Sanchez v. Swyden, 139 F.3d 464, 466-467 (5th Cir.1998). … To determine whether the plaintiff has overcome the presumption of qualified immunity, the Court first considers whether the plaintiff has proven a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Collins v.

Heyne v. METROPOLITAN NASHVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

686 F. Supp. 2d 724 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Nov 3, 2009

Defendants argue that they did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights of Christian Heyne, that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and that Defendant Metro cannot be liable because … Qualified Immunity 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 rights of which

Albright v. Texas Department of Human Services

859 S.W.2d 575 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Jul 29, 1993

Clearly, the legislature contemplated that summary judgment is the appropriate procedure in which to determine official immunity. And in his concurrence in Travis v. … School Dist., 894 F.2d 174 , 177 (5th Cir.1990) (because the defense of qualified immunity is immunity from suit, which extends beyond just a defense to include all aspects of civil litigation, qualified immunity questions

Mann v. Palmerton Area School District

189 F. Supp. 3d 467 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 2016

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that even if Plaintiffs can establish their state-created danger claim, Coach Walkowiak is entitled to qualified immunity. … In analyzing whether the coach was entitled to qualified immunity, the Third Circuit explained that although district court opinions “may be relevant to the determination of when a right was clearly established for qualified

Ex Parte Turner

840 So. 2d 132 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 21, 2002

and qualified immunity. … Turner's affidavit provides uncontroverted sworn statements that sufficiently establish qualified immunity from the § 1983 action.

Ex parte Ingram

229 So. 3d 220 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Feb 24, 2017

The same result is reached in federal qualified-immunity analysis by the requirement that the right the defendant is alleged to have violated must be “clearly established,” by which the federal cases mean not only that the … Saucier further instructs that ‘[i]f the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.’ Id. (emphasis added).”