Case law

Knopf v. Williams

884 F.3d 939 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 5, 2018

He moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity because (1) Mr. Knopf had failed to prove a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the law was not clearly established at the time of Mr. … Knopf with clearly established law to overcome Mayor Williams's qualified immunity defense.

Kreger-Mueller, Valerie v. Shiner, Justin

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Sep 9, 2019

Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 424–28 (1976) (explaining the policy rationales that underlie the doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity). … Counseling Ctr., 987 F.2d 397, 408–09 (7th Cir. 1993) (discussing relevant case law in context of assessing whether law was clearly established for qualified-immunity purposes).

Fabien Eldridge v. William E. Gibson, David Day, Robert Durham, Michael H. Knowlton, and Sam Lee

332 F.3d 1019 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 19, 2003

Cameron Co., Tex., 274 F.3d 269, 276 (5th Cir.2001) (“It is a well established rule that where a judge’s absolute immunity would protect him from liability for the performance of particular acts, mere allegations that he … Eldridge’s argument that the Thirteenth Judicial District is a “person” subject to suit under § 1983 also fails because, as Judge Haynes discussed, the Thirteenth Judicial District is clearly a branch of the *1022 state and

Ashker v. Schwarzenegger

339 F. App'x 751 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 30, 2009

McGrath is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. See Brosseau v. … Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198 , 125 S.Ct. 596 , 160 L.Ed.2d 583 (2004) (holding officer entitled to immunity “[i]f the law at the time did not clearly establish that the officer’s conduct would violate the Constitution”).

Hershel Rosenbaum v. Washoe County

663 F.3d 1071 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 30, 2011

, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the event. … WASHOE COUNTY qualified immunity where “every reasonable official” would have understood that he was violating a clearly established right (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).2 In this case

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.

Tanner v. McMurray

989 F.3d 860 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 2, 2021

Endorsing the district court’s conclusion that Appellees are entitled to qualified immunity under Filarsky simply because they worked for the government through a contractor would establish a de facto functional test for … qualified immunity.

Weigel v. Broad

544 F.3d 1143 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 21, 2008

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to an excessive force claim. … deadly force violated clearly established law.

Walden v. City of Seattle

77 Wash. App. 784 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 3, 1995

In an action under § 1983, government employees, including police officers, are afforded qualified immunity under federal law unless, in the performance of discretionary duties, their conduct violated " 'clearly established … Thus, entitlement to qualified immunity may be established as a matter of law on a motion for summary judgment or for a directed verdict. Robinson v. Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 34 , 830 P.2d 318 , cert. denied, 113 S.

Taylor v. Barkes

25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 305 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 1, 2015

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statu- tory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Because, at the very least, petitioners were not contraven- ing clearly established law, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Logan v. Oklahoma City Police Department

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 12, 2024

Initially, defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Logan’s First Amendment claims because Logan cannot show a violation of clearly established law. … “In other words, general statements of the law can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes if they apply with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question.” Id.

Omar Ex Rel. Cannon v. Lindsey

334 F.3d 1246 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 26, 2003

PER CURIAM: This is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss on the grounds of qualified immunity.

Chavez v. The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Chaves

District Court, D. New Mexico · Jan 31, 2020

basis of qualified immunity.” … The individual defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the law is not clearly established. Mot. at 19–23 (relying on Springer v. Albin, 398 F.

James v. Cuny-John Jay College

District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 16, 2021

right that [2] was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”) … immunity.

Jafet Castro-Reyes v. German Bosque

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 6, 2026

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory … immunity under the clearly established law of this Circuit.

White v. Pauly

26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 409 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jan 9, 2017

All three officers moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct " 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Mullenix v.

Puller v. Baca

781 F.3d 1190 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 20, 2015

When a defendant asserts qualified immunity, as Detective Baca does here, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish (1) a violation of a constitutional right (2) that was clearly established. Id. … Ultimately, “the record must clearly demonstrate the plaintiff has satisfied his heavy two-part burden; otherwise, the defendant[] is entitled to qualified immunity.” Id.

Pritchett v. Alford

973 F.2d 307 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 19, 1992

Immunity may thus be established either on the basis that the right allegedly (or actually) violated was not at the time one “clearly established,” or that, though “clearly established” (and violated), it was one that a “ … But as earlier noted, a specific prior adjudication of right is not necessary to make it one “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes.

Craig Singletary v. MO Dept. of Correct

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 14, 2005

Texas Tech Univ., 80 F.3d 1042, 1046 (5th Cir. 1996) (holding that Texas Tech and Texas Tech employees enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity and qualified immunity respectively against § 1981 claims); Mitchell v. … Dept., 297 F.3d 751, 759 (8th Cir. 2002) (surveying the law and concluding that it was "clearly established" that at-will employees could sue for employment discrimination under § 1981).

Golino v. City of New Haven

761 F. Supp. 962 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Apr 18, 1991

, the issue of qualified immunity can be decided on a motion for summary judgment. … Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is denied. Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity is ultimately a question of law for the court to decide.