Case law

C.M. v. Southeast Delco School District

828 F. Supp. 1179 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 1993

In order to obtain qualified immunity, each defendant must show that his conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Finally, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity, because the kind of abuse alleged by plaintiff is a violation of *1192 clearly established constitutional rights, and because plaintiff makes sufficient allegations

Massachusetts Furniture & Piano Movers Association, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

773 F.2d 391 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 30, 1985

Moreover, the FTC argues, both the Commission and the AU applied the Midcal standard to the facts of this case and found that the Association failed to establish a clearly articulated Massachusetts policy to promote anti-competitive … Accordingly, the Association met its first burden in establishing Parker immunity. 7 In order to be immunized from antitrust liability under Parker , the Association must also satisfy the second prong of the Midcal test —

Wagner v. Bay City Texas

227 F.3d 316 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 27, 2000

as to how long the de- unreasonable excessive force in light of clearly fendants held Gutierrez on the ground, how established law. … summary established right has been violated judgment on their qualified immunity defenses.

Rodriguez v. Phillips

66 F.3d 470 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 15, 1995

Moreover, defendants’ actions at that time must have been objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established federal law; otherwise, those actors are entitled to qualified immunity. … Summary judgment is particularly appropriate when the qualified immunity defense is based on a showing that an asserted right was not clearly established since the inquiry as to whether a right was or was not clearly established

Sherman L.G. Noble v. Janice Schmitt and Connie Stevens

87 F.3d 157 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 14, 1996

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability or civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Preferably, the claimant will make factual allegations in his complaint which are sufficient to establish a violation of clearly established law before the qualified immunity issue arises. Dominque, 831 F.2d at 676 .

Stein v. Gunkel

District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Nov 2, 2021

Hamblen Cty., Tennessee, 969 F.3d 592, 601 (6th Cir. 2020) (noting that an unresolved question of law cannot qualify as “clearly established law” under the qualified immunity test and assuming the Farmer standard applies … If the law was not clearly established, then neither Gunkel nor Sterling could have violated Stein’s rights and qualified immunity bars Stein’s claims against them.

Elder v. Holloway

510 U.S. 510 · Supreme Court of the United States · Feb 23, 1994

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials like respondents from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … Davis , in short, concerned not the authorities a court may consider in determining qualified immunity, but this entirely discrete question: Is qualified immunity defeated where a defendant violates any clearly established

Porter v. Daggett County

District Court, D. Utah · Feb 24, 2022

Jerry Jorgensen is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs have not shown that his actions violated clearly established law. … As discussed above when addressing qualified immunity,189 the Plaintiffs have not identified any clearly established law that demonstrates that Jorgensen must have known that his actions were clearly unlawful when he took

Aaron Spann v. Police Officer A.G. Rainey, Aaron Spann v. A.G. Rainey, Police Officer, A.G. Rainey, Police Officer

987 F.2d 1110 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 25, 1993

As a police officer, Rainey is immune from both suit and liability unless it is shown that, at the time of the incident, he violated a clearly established constitutional right. Salas v. … objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law in 1987.

Charles Brumitt v. Sam Smith

102 F.4th 444 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 20, 2024

circumstances was ‘clearly established.’” … denying qualified immunity.

Corrigan v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 25, 2015

that were clearly established at the time.’” … Glover did not violate any clearly-established right under the Fourth Amendment, all three individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity under the second prong of the Saucier test.

Irish v. Fowler

979 F.3d 65 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 5, 2020

was clearly established. … their conduct was 'clearly established at the time.'"

Clay Blanchard v. City of Des Moines

Court of Appeals of Iowa · Dec 4, 2024

immunity available to the [City].” … Those questions are to be resolved early because qualified immunity not only serves as protection from liability—it protects government defendants from the risks and distractions of trial as well. See Harlow v.

Scott v. Sisolak

District Court, D. Nevada · Sep 2, 2023

2 court should resolve that threshold question [of qualified immunity] before permitting 3 discovery”); Mitchell v. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (holding that when a plaintiff's 4 allegations fail to “state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading 5 qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal

Michael J. Gorra v. Floyd Hanson, Patrick Chase, Minnesota State Highway Patrol, an Agency or Division of the State of Minnesota

880 F.2d 95 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 24, 1989

DISCUSSION A law enforcement officer is shielded by qualified immunity from civil liability if the officer “[did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … The objective legal reasonableness of the troopers’ conduct must be evaluated in *98 light of law that was clearly established when the arrest occurred. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Service Employment Redevelopment v. Fort Worth Independent School District

Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · Mar 3, 2005

code did not clearly and unambiguously waive school district’s immunity from suit); City of Dallas v. … provides the “requisite clarity to establish a waiver of immunity from suit”). 8: San Antonio ISD , 2004 WL 2450919 , at *2-3 (mem. op.)

Hutchins v. McKay

285 F. Supp. 3d 420 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 16, 2018

No principle of qualified immunity will protect them. Second, the undisputed facts of record will not support an invocation of qualified immunity based on the "community caretaking" exception to the Fourth Amendment. … Nevertheless, he concluded that, given the "nebulous" boundaries of the exception, the officers had qualified immunity, as a reasonable officer would not have known, in that factual context, that he was violating a clearly

BALLARD v. DAVIS

District Court, M.D. Georgia · Sep 26, 2025

While the complaint appears to acknowledge the clearly established law prong of qualified immunity, Ballard’s brief does not. … Vickers, 929 F.3d 1304, 1316 (11th Cir. 2019) (“[T]he qualified immunity analysis requires a clearly established right to be defined with specificity.”).

Martha Romero v. City of Grapevine, Texas

888 F.3d 170 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 20, 2018

. § 1983 on the basis of qualified immunity. For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM. … because the right, defined at a fact specific level, was not clearly established at the time of the violation.

Morgan v. Swanson

659 F.3d 359 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 27, 2011

not clearly established, we address step two of the qualified-immunity inquiry first. … IV We hold today that the principals are entitled to qualified immunity because clearly established law did not put the constitutionality of their actions beyond debate.