Case law

Hunter v. Smith

District Court, E.D. Texas · Aug 14, 2025

As plaintiff failed to present competent summary-judgment evidence showing that defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right, the magistrate judge found that defendants were entitled to qualified … Fite, 47 F.4th 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2022) (granting qualified immunity when plaintiff “fails to iden- tify a single case to support” a clearly established right (quotation marks omitted)).

STILE v. HOLLINGSWORTH

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 29, 2021

assuming Plaintiff’s allegations to be true and determining whether the claim was supported by clearly established law. … Ed. 2d 463 (2017) (explaining that clearly established law, for purposes of qualified immunity, must make apparent the unlawfulness of the conduct that violates the Constitution).

Ramirez v. Escajeda

District Court, W.D. Texas · May 31, 2022

’s conduct was, “as a matter of law,” “objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law,” Cantrell, 666 F.3d at 921; Kinney v. … Bay City, Tex., 227 F.3d 316, 320–24 (5th Cir. 2000) (addressing whether there was clearly-established law). But see Colston v.

Gill v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 21, 2019

The manner in which courts are permitted to resolve qualified-immunity defenses protects from unnecessary constitutional conjecture: “[C]ourts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly … To begin, the named Marshals are clearly entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional questions in this case fall well short of being “clearly established.”

Jack v. County of Stanislaus

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 14, 2020

Qualified Immunity 18 Qualified immunity applies when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established 19 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that Ninth Circuit 3 precedent is sufficient to meet the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity).

Kruse v. State of Hawaii

857 F. Supp. 741 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Jul 11, 1994

Common sense dictates that a right cannot be both “clearly established” and “previously undecided” for qualified immunity purposes. … established in order to deny qualified immunity.

Ghaith v. Rauschenberger

778 F. Supp. 2d 787 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 10, 2011

“Qualified immunity provides ‘that government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … “was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Bowden v. Snider

District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 23, 2024

What is more, the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Cortesluna, 595 U.S. 1, 5 (2021) (A right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity “when it is sufficiently clear that every reasonable officer would have understood that what he is doing violates that

Pugh v. Mooney

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2024

Pugh also cites several cases discussing qualified immunity to argue that sovereign immunity does not apply. These cases are inapposite. Sovereign immunity and qualified immunity are distinct concepts. … Children & Youth Servs., 577 F.3d 186, 191 (3d Cir. 2009) (“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

McKennon v. District Attorney's Office (Lawrenceburg, TN)

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · May 31, 2023

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the … unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.”

Barrett v. City of Pelahatchie, Mississippi

District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Mar 17, 2023

Unless the public official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, he is cloaked with qualified immunity. (citing Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)). … to “rebut this defense by establishing that the official's allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.”).

Petrello v. City of Manchester, et al.

2017 DNH 053 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 21, 2017

of particular conduct is clearly established.’” … Officer Brandreth argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because any First Amendment right he allegedly violated was not clearly established at that time.

Butler v. Woods

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 28, 2022

Qualified Immunity. Finally, the defendants argue that Bellas and Woods are protected by qualified immunity. … Epps, 659 F.3d 440, 447 (Sth Cir. 2011) (analyzing, as part of qualified immunity, whether the defendant’s “failure to promulgate [a] policy was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law”).

Scott v. Quigley

District Court, D. Nevada · Apr 29, 2025

While the Court decides 17 as a matter of law the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis, only 18 the jury can decide the disputed factual issues. See Morales v. … Cal. 25 2012) (police officer entitled to qualified immunity because constitutional informational 26 privacy right was not clearly established); O'Phelan v.

Chen v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 2011

were clearly established at the time the action was taken” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). … A defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity is a question of law to be decided by the court, see id., although sometimes, as in this case, the facts establishing what the challenged conduct was are legitimately in dispute

Wood v. Bailey (MAG+)

District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 5, 2022

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for individual government officials performing discretionary functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Wheeler, 843 F.3d 473, 480 (11th Cir. 2016) (“Qualified Immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the

Hokamp, Pamela v. Blevins, Erman

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Jun 6, 2024

Milwaukee Cnty., 44 F.4th 605, 620 (7th Cir. 2022) (“Qualified immunity shields state actors from liability where their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights . . . .”). … The plaintiff bears the burden of defeating the defendant’s claim to qualified immunity. Taylor v.

Matthews v. Leflore County, Mississippi

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Sep 19, 2025

Clifton, 29 F.3d 1012, 1015 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding that law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity “unless it is shown that, at the time of the incident, [the officer] violated a clearly established constitutional … Particularly considering that this case involves the invocation of a qualified immunity defense, the Court finds it appropriate to avoid attempting to piece together Matthews’ contentions.

Fuchilla v. Prockop

682 F. Supp. 247 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 13, 1987

If the law prohibiting the official act was clearly established then “a reasonably competent public official” should have known of it and the qualified immunity defense “should ordinarily fail” unless the official claims … If, however, the law was not clearly established, the defendant will be immune unless the plaintiff can show that the defendant actually knew that he was violating the law.

Assance v. Lincoln County

District Court, D. Montana · Feb 11, 2025

Holzer’s argument for qualified immunity was denied because clearly established law prohibited him from shooting an erratically behaving individual that did not pose an immediate threat to either himself or others. … Compare with Wilkins, 350 F.3d at 955 (rejecting qualified immunity appeal due to factual dispute where “there is no question whether the officers’ actions .. . violated clearly established law”) and Toscano v.