Case law

Escobar v. Harris County

442 S.W.3d 621 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jul 31, 2014

Clearly established law and qualified immunity After Deputy Goodney raised the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, the burden of persuasion fell on Escobar to negate the defense. See Thomas, 263 S.W.3d at 219 . … If he did, then the clearly established law permits the use of deadly force. If he didn’t, then the clearly established law prohibits it.

Becker v. Clark

722 So. 2d 232 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 25, 1998

Qualified immunity shields a government actor from personal liability when his conduct does not violate clearly established rights. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). … , under the most favorable version of facts alleged, the defendant's action violated clearly established law.

Doyle v. Rondout Valley Central School District

3 A.D.3d 669 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 15, 2004

“A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her conduct does *671 not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … To be entitled to qualified immunity, Seals was required to establish that it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his conduct was appropriate under the circumstances, or that officers of reasonable competence

Tesson v. Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Public Welfare

7 Mass. L. Rptr. 138 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Mar 27, 1997

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817-18 (1982) (establishing qualified immunity standard under 42 U.S.C. §1983 ); See also Anderson v. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987) (qualified immunity allows a defendant to move for summary judgment on the ground that, based on “clearly established” rights, he could reasonably have believed his acts to be lawful).

Stone v. Badgerow

511 N.W.2d 747 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Feb 1, 1994

Did the district court err in holding that the law supporting appellants’ claim was sufficiently clearly established to defeat qualified immunity? II. … violation of clearly established law.

Cook v. City of Cincinnati

103 Ohio App. 3d 80 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 31, 1995

This right is known in law as qualified immunity. Qualified immunity in this context is a question of federal law. State law immunity has no application to a 1983 claim. … The United States Supreme Court has stated that “unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement

Sergeant Mary Haver and Deputy Constable Kevin Vailes, in Their Individually Capacities v. Barbara Coats

491 S.W.3d 877 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Apr 12, 2016

A no-evidence motion cannot be used to obtain summary judgment establishing the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … raise the qualified immunity defense by doing nothing more than pleading in good faith that qualified immunity applies.

Reuther v. Anderson

677 So. 2d 38 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 3, 1996

We do not want this affirmance to be construed, however, as a holding that appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987) (qualified immunity defense calls for a determination of whether a constitutional right asserted and allegedly violated was clearly established at time and

Jaso v. Travis County Juvenile Board

6 S.W.3d 324 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Nov 4, 1999

University of Mississippi, the Fifth Circuit emphasized that a fact-finder can infer pretext if it finds that the employee was clearly better qualified (as opposed to merely better or as qualified). … Jaso does not claim to have been clearly better qualified than Medina for the position of chief. The Board argues that this is the only way to establish a pretext for age-discrimination. We disagree.

Phillip Lucas . v. State of Tennessee Michael E. Collins v. State of Tennessee

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Feb 4, 2004

Qualified immunity is asserted as a defense, and shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Daniel J. Peterson, D/B/A Chiarello Investments, D/B/A Home Equity lending.com v. County Line, Inc. James Houchins and Greg A. Weithoner

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 7, 2008

He asserted that Hayes-Pupko had to overcome his assertion of qualified immunity by proving that he (1) violated her clearly established rights and (2) acted unreasonably or in bad faith in doing so. … Discussion “A government official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Carrillo v. State

169 Ariz. 126 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Sep 5, 1991

immunity. … In the answer, defendants asserted a defense of qualified immunity, which is available only to a government official sued in a personal rather than official capacity.

Stephan Lane v. Riley Kummet

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Jan 13, 2026

“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 a reasonable person … Wodnicki, 123 F.3d 1005, 1008 (7th Cir. 1997) (explaining that an official is entitled to qualified immunity “if, at the time he acted, he reasonably could have determined that his actions did not violate clearly established

Caron v. Silvia

32 Mass. App. Ct. 271 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 23, 1992

entitled to a defense of qualified immunity from liability, and judgment was entered in their favor. *273 The judge correctly set forth the scope of immunity protecting the defendants, sued as individuals, for discretionary … Consistent with the reasons underlying the qualified immunity defense, it was important that the immunity issue be resolved at the earliest possible stage of litigation, preferably before any discovery, on a motion to dismiss

MICHAEL DOLINSKI v. BOROUGH OF WATCHUNG (L-1080-19, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 8, 2022

Plaintiff argues the motion judge erred in granting defendant Cina qualified immunity. Citing Morillo v. … State, 230 N.J. 84, 98 (2017) (holding a governmental official is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is established that a clearly established constitutional right was violated).

Arlington Professional Fire Fighters International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, Local 1329 David Crow, Shawn Graham, Joseph Markham, Edward Montague, Matthew Throne, and Adrian Rojas v. City of Arlington, Texas City of Arlington, Texas, City Council City of Arlington, Texas, Civil Service Commission Jim Ross, in His Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of Arlington Helen Moise, in Her Official Capacity as a Member of the City of Arlington, Texas, City Council Ralph Gonzalez, in His Official Capacity as a Member of the City of Arlington, Texas, City Council Nikkie Hunter, in Her Official Capacity as a Member of the City of Arlington, Texas, City Council

Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · Sep 16, 2021

It is not clearly established whether Burlington’s “materially adverse” standard applies to retaliation for protected speech. See Gibson . . . , 734 F.3d [at] 401 n.4 . . . … Saunders, 588 F.3d 282, 288 (5th Cir. 2009) (finding that the application of Burlington to First Amendment retaliation is not “clearly established”)[, abrogated on other grounds by Sims v.

Brayshaw v. Gelber

232 N.J. Super. 99 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 6, 1989

We acknowledged that this qualified immunity was subject to N.J.S.A. 59:3-14a as are all Tort Claims Act immunities. … therefore, she was entitled to a qualified immunity under N.J.S.A. 59:3-3.

Williams v. Mayor & City Council

128 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 7, 1999

The Maryland case law establishes unequivocally that police officers in the course of their public duties are public officials within the contemplation of the qualified immunity law. … We hold that in enacting the immunity provision of Ch. 307 of the Acts of 1979, it clearly was not the legislative intent to diminish or to curtail in any way the qualified immunity otherwise enjoyed by a law enforcement

Richardson v. City of St. Louis

293 S.W.3d 133 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Sep 22, 2009

Burrow’s defense of official immunity is not clearly established by the petition. Arguing, in essence, that the petition does not clearly establish that official immunity bars the claim against Mr. … Because the facts of the petition alone are not adequate to clearly establish the defense of official immunity, the trial court erred in granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Mr.

In the Interest of J.L.W.

523 N.W.2d 622 · Court of Appeals of Iowa · Aug 25, 1994

Clearly, actions speak louder than words. Intent can be shown through conduct. Michael has established a record of complete disregard for J.L.W.’s welfare: no visits, no financial support, no cards, letters, or gifts. … We also determine this is established by clear and convincing evidence.