Case law

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

Locantore v. Hunt

775 F. Supp. 2d 680 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2011

require a conclusion that it was ‘clearly established’ in the qualified immunity context.” … Because it was not clearly established for qualified immunity purposes that to impose PRS administratively was unlawful prior to Earley , it must follow that it was also not clearly established that it was unlawful to do

Hicks v. Feeney

770 F.2d 375 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 26, 1985

Fauver, 544 F.Supp. 584, 607 (D.N.J.1982) (although legal principles clearly established, qualified immunity granted because specific question not yet resolved). … Thus, Feeney’s entitlement to qualified immunity hinges on whether it was clearly established that Hicks’s confinement after the initial 72-hour period violated his constitutional rights.

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

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

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

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.

Ray v. Washington State Department of Health and Human Services

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 17, 2025

qualified immunity. … Bd. of Regents of Nevada Sys. of Higher Educ., 616 20 F.3d 963, 969 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[W]e may begin the qualified immunity analysis by considering 21 whether there is a violation of clearly established law without

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.

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

Bossio v. Taylor (INMATE 1)

District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 21, 2019

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009) (holding that courts can address the clearly established prong of qualified immunity analysis first). … Therefore, the law was not clearly established at the time of the action in question, and the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Belcher v.

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.”

ORTIZ v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY FREEHOLDERS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 24, 2024

Yost, 63 F.4th 211, 228 (3d Cir. 2023) (a § 1983 defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the right at issue was not clearly established at the time it was allegedly violated) (citation omitted). … Broad general propositions in precedential cases, without sufficient factual context, do not clearly establish a constitutional right for purposes of qualified immunity. Id. (citing Mullenix 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.

Sims v. Figueroa

District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 27, 2019

Qualified Immunity Defendant Figueroa alternatively asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … As to qualified immunity, the Eleventh Circuit has stated: To invoke qualified immunity, a public official must first demonstrate

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.

Nunes v. Stephens

District Court, E.D. California · May 17, 2021

Defendants appealed the denial of qualified immunity. 1 On December 29, 2020, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion that reversed this Court’s 2 denial of qualified immunity. See Nunes v. … Raemisch, 864 F.3d 1071, 1078-79 (10th Cir. 2017) (holding that a prior published opinion could be read narrowly or 28 expansively and was too ambiguous to constitute “clearly established law” for purposes of qualified

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.