Case law

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”).

Vermette v. Ludwig

707 So. 2d 742 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 10, 1997

As to the § 1983 claims, the officers grounded their summary judgment motion on an assertion of qualified immunity from suit. … If the public official's conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right, the official is immune." Stephens, 702 So.2d at 526 .

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.

Price v. Federal Express Corp.

283 F.3d 715 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 12, 2002

Second, he argues that by presenting evidence that he is clearly better qualified than Paone, he has effectively established pretext. … clearly))more qualified for the subject job.”

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.

Andre Johnson v. Jeremy Moseley

790 F.3d 649 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 2, 2015

Page 2 of clearly established federal law. … “Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell v.

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.

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

Nunez v. Simms

341 F.3d 385 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 30, 2003

alleged the violation of a clearly established federal constitutional right. … The plaintiff's showing of a violation of a clearly established constitutional right is a “prerequisite” to overcoming the qualified immunity defense; failure to do so obviates the need to address the

Kenneth Hunter v. Town of Mocksville, North Caro

789 F.3d 389 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 15, 2015

To successfully avail themselves of qualified immunity, Defendants must show either that no constitutional violation occurred or that the right violated was not clearly established at the timé it was violated. Id. … Qualified immunity shields government officials “who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry, 652 F.3d at 531 .

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

66 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 290, 65 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,347 Susan A. Bator v. State of Hawaii, and Carolyn M. Kainuma, in Her Individual Capacity Warren T. Asaeda, in His Individual Capacity

39 F.3d 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 8, 1994

right to be free of harassment that is motivated by gender. 28 Qualified immunity protects state officials from section 1983 liability if their conduct does not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The defendants argue, however, that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right to be free of sexual harassment was not clearly established during the period of Bator's employment.

Lennox v. Miller

968 F.3d 150 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 29, 2020

Officers Miller and Clarke contend that because their actions did not violate “clearly established law,” the district court erred in denying them qualified immunity at this juncture. … “There are therefore two steps to the qualified immunity analysis: first, whether the plaintiff established that his constitutional rights were violated, and second, whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’

Mick v. Brewer

76 F.3d 1127 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 20, 1996

Turning to the merits, “[qualified immunity protects public officials from individual liability in a § 1983 action unless the officials violated ‘clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … If the district court denies the defendant qualified immunity, the court should identify on the record the defendant’s conduct that violated clearly established law. Albright, 51 F.3d at 1535 .

Margheim v. Buljko

855 F.3d 1077 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 28, 2017

clearly established law.” … Having established that Mr. Margheim failed to make out a constitutional violation, we need not address the clearly established law inquiry of the qualified immunity analysis.

Waganfeald v. Gusman

674 F.3d 475 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 12, 2012

light of clearly established law at the time of the violation.”21 A defendant violates clearly established law only if “the contours of [the] right are sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood … established law, so the district court should have granted him judgment as a matter of law on qualified immunity. 27 McCoy 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.

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.

Sueiro Vazquez v. Torregrosa De La Rosa

494 F.3d 227 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 19, 2007

clearly established rights of the plaintiffs. … For example, in Borges Colón, an advice of counsel defense failed to establish qualified immunity.

Lisa Haberthur v. City of Raymore

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 11, 1997

violation of the substantive due process right to bodily integrity or privacy, and the courts of appeal have recognized that the right may be 4 The Supreme Court has recently discussed what is needed to establish … Ramirez, 967 F.2d 1413, 1415-16 (9th Cir. 1992) (parole officer not entitled to qualified immunity for depriving woman of clearly established due process right to bodily privacy by entering a bathroom stall and watching her