Case law

Ullery v. Bradley

949 F.3d 1282 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 10, 2020

Defendant qualified immunity. … Defendant instead focuses on the second prong of the qualified-immunity inquiry, arguing he is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the relevant time.

Godin v. Corrections Corp. of America

Vermont Superior Court · Aug 25, 2017

We have recognized two degrees of official immunity: absolute immunity and qualified immunity. … White, 155 Vt. 621, 626–27 (1991) (“The desire in Levinsky to promote summary judgment resolution of qualified immunity claims is consistent with the perception that qualified immunity is indeed an immunity from the suit

Mudge v. Zugalla, Harder

939 F.3d 72 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 12, 2019

had violated clearly established law. … ʺThe issues on qualified immunity are: (1) whether plaintiff has shown facts making out [a] violation of a constitutional right; (2) if so, whether that right was clearly established; and (3) even if the right was clearly

Beyond Systems, Inc. v. Keynetics, Inc.

422 F. Supp. 2d 523 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 14, 2006

Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 , 116 S.Ct. 834 , 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996) (qualified immunity defense may be raised at both the motion to dismiss and summary judgment stages). … Case law clearly establishes that CDA immunity applies even where an ISP knew of its customers’ potentially illegal activity. The Fourth Circuit in Zeran explained why.

Siebert v. Severino

97 F. Supp. 2d 882 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · May 24, 2000

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (even if the law is clearly established, an official is entitled to qualified immunity if he neither knew or should have known of the relevant legal … prevail on her due process claim because Severino violated clearly established constitutional law.

Porter v. Jameson

889 F. Supp. 1484 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 12, 1995

“clearly established”). … Simply put, Officer Jameson is entitled to qualified immunity if the Porters fail to produce sufficient evidence that, when viewed in the light most favorable to them, Jameson violated their clearly established Fourteenth

Lewis v. Hat Corporation of America

150 A.2d 750 · Court of Chancery of Delaware · May 1, 1959

It is clearly established in Delaware that stockholder ratification of corporate action which is not per se void renders such action immune from minority stockholder attack, Fidanque v. … The proxy statement setting forth the matters to be acted on at the August 29 special meeting of stockholders clearly described the specific matter before the meeting to be approval of the agreement to purchase Champ Hats

Beier v. City of Lewiston

354 F.3d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 14, 2004

The Supreme Court reasoned that the consequences of such an argument would be “intolerable,” because the qualified immunity right would be easily defeated as long as the complaint alleges violation of one clearly established … Clearly Established Right “ ‘[C]learly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates

ZHANG v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA

District Court, M.D. Georgia · Aug 26, 2024

Jones, 575 F.3d 1281, 1300 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity test). … It was clearly established before 2020 that § 1981 prohibited such conduct. Cordero and Davis are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage in the litigation.

Hudson v. Vasquez

941 S.W.2d 334 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Feb 6, 1997

In order to establish the “good faith” element of his claim to summary judgment based on official immunity, Hudson was required to prove that a reasonably prudent police officer could have believed that the force used was … The state law standard for analyzing the “good faith” element of official immunity is “derived substantially from the test that has emerged under federal immunity law for claims of qualified immunity in section 1983 cases

Freeman v. Blair

862 F.2d 1330 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 14, 1988

A. of our earlier decision, in which we held that Blair and Massa are not entitled to absolute immunity. See 793 F.2d at 171-73. We turn to the issues of qualified immunity. … Consequently, we must conclude that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to this claim.

Estate of Kirby v. Duva

530 F.3d 475 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 27, 2008

Because it was clearly established at the time of the shooting that deadly force could not be used against a non-dangerous fleeing felon, qualified immunity was properly denied on the facts as presented in this case. I. … was clearly established.”

Michael Bourne v. Michael Gunnels

921 F.3d 484 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 16, 2019

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and its progeny, or, alter- natively, (3) defendants are entitled to qualified immunity (“QI”) from his claims because he did not establish a constitutional violation. … “A qualified immunity defense alters the usual summary judgment bur- den of proof.” Brown v. Callahan, 623 F.3d 249, 253 (5th Cir. 2010).

Marty Emmons v. City of Escondido

921 F.3d 1172 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 25, 2019

, and therefore the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights  EMMONS V.

Estate Of William J. Bing

456 F.3d 555 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 1, 2006

For the same reason, the plaintiffs' destruction of property claim based on the house fire is also barred by the officers' qualified immunity. 66 In a qualified immunity analysis, the "first inquiry must be whether a constitutional … The Supreme Court has not clearly established such a right, nor has this court or other circuits. See Daugherty v.

K. Blackwell v. City of Pittsburgh

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2025

“Clearly established means that, at the time of 7 Thomas resolved the tension between federal notice pleading and qualified immunity’s “fact-specific inquiry.” … clearly established.

Henry Lyons v. F. Wayne Vaught

875 F.3d 1168 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 22, 2017

Defendants moved to dismiss the SAC, arguing they are entitled to qualified immunity because at the time of the alleged retaliation, “it was not clearly established that a teacher complaining about academic favoritism towards … “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. Pauly, 137 S.

Finch v. Wichita, Kansas, City of

District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 15, 2020

of the qualified immunity analysis – a finding of qualified immunity … preclude[s] the imposition of municipal liability.” … clearly established would not necessarily preclude Plaintiffs’ claim against the City. Cf. Contreras on behalf of A.L. v. Dona Ana Cty. Bd. of Cty.

Zalaski v. City of Hartford

723 F.3d 382 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 23, 2013

Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers from § 1983 claims for money damages provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights … Thus, even if a right is clearly established in certain respects, qualified immunity will still shield an officer from liability if “officers of reasonable competence could disagree” on the legality of the action at issue

In Re Copley Press, Inc.

518 F.3d 1022 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 4, 2008

United States, 873 F.2d 1210, 1213 (9th Cir.1989), though logic alone, even without experience, may be enough to establish the right. See Seattle Times Co. v. U.S. Dist. … The court didn't clearly err in so finding and, in light of that finding, its decision to unseal these portions of the documents was not an abuse of discretion.