Case law

Kindrow v. Benson

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 19, 2021

[And] sometimes [qualified immunity] [is] best resolved in a motion to dismiss,” particularly where the complaint itself establishes the defense. Siefert v. … Indeed, “[u]nless 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.”

BALLARD v. DAVIS

District Court, M.D. Georgia · Sep 19, 2025

Vickers, 929 F.3d 1304, 1316 (11th Cir. 2019) (“[T]he qualified immunity analysis requires a clearly established right to be defined with specificity.”). … Ballard’s lawyers have made no effort to carry Ballard’s burden of showing clearly established law, and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

ELLIS v. LAWSON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 17, 2025

"Qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Defendants frame their qualified immunity argument (as it relates to the conditions claim rather than the medical deliberate indifference claim) as follows: It has not been clearly established that using a squeegee

Juan Alberto Blanco Garcia v. State of Tennessee

425 S.W.3d 248 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Dec 23, 2013

whether trial counsel performed deficiently, Padilla requires us to answer two questions: (1) whether deportation and the plea’s effect on the petitioner’s future eligibility to return legally to the United States were clearly … Blanco also acknowledged that neither immigration lawyer indicated specifically whether child abuse qualified as a crime involving moral turpitude, but instead recommended that the petitioner consult with trial counsel on

Brown v. Frey

889 F.2d 159 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 7, 1989

Trickey did not violate Brown’s clearly established right to call witnesses at the February 27 contraband hearing. As a result, they are entitled to qualified immunity and are immune from liability. … Trickey are immune from liability under the doctrine of qualified good faith immunity because they did not violate any clearly established constitutional right.

Surat v. Klamser

52 F.4th 1261 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 9, 2022

The district court then concluded Officer Klamser was not entitled to qualified immunity because clearly established law would have put a reasonable officer on notice “that an officer may not use a takedown maneuver on … Surat’s constitutional right to be free from excessive force, it erred in denying him qualified immunity because that right was not clearly established at the time of the incident.

Pitt, Christopher v. DC

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 26, 2007

Hust, 477 F.3d 1070, 1079 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Whether the right at issue in a claim of qualified immunity is clearly established . . . is a pure question of law . . . .”); Williams v. Ala. … immunity on these claims because this right was not “clearly established” at the time of the actions at issue in this case.

Larry D. Lomaz Pacific Financial Services of America, Inc. v. William A. Hennosy

151 F.3d 493 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 29, 1998

secured by the Constitution,” 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , is limited by two recognized exceptions: qualified immunity and absolute immunity. … The former, the most common type of official immunity, subjects officials to liability for the performance of discretionary functions only when their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Swain v. Roe

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 26, 1997

Qualified Immunity _____________________ Defendants assert that they are, in any event, entitled to qualified immunity from suit. There are two prongs to the qualified immunity analysis. … . _________ . . in 1977, [there was] a 'clearly established' Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches.").

Harris v. Clay County, MS

47 F.4th 271 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 24, 2022

It granted Huffman qualified immunity, concluding that Harris did not prove that the sheriff’s actions violated clearly established law. … The second is whether that right is “clearly established.” Id.

City of Houston v. Catrennia Foreman Sauls, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Dwayne Foreman, And Tristena Christian, as Next Friend of D.F., a Minor

Texas Supreme Court · May 10, 2024

. § 1983 “unequivocally negated the original interpretive premise for qualified immunity”); Zadeh, 928 F.3d at 479-81 (Willett, J., concurring) (criticizing the “clearly established law” standard). … See Chambers, 883 S.W.2d at 657 (although “federal immunity may be conferred at the summary judgment stage by the court’s finding that the constitutional right at issue was not clearly established,” “[n]o analogous threshold

Alcala v. Ortega

District Court, D. New Mexico · Jan 5, 2024

A court has the discretion to decide “which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first”—as either issue is dispositive on the issue of qualified immunity. Pearson v. … The Court granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because it found there was no constitutional violation and the Plaintiff failed to show a violation of clearly established law (Doc. 66 at 17–18).

SEPTA v. City of Phila., Aplts.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 2014

The court concluded: “Clearly then, as an agency and instrumentality of the Commonwealth, SEPTA qualifies as an ‘employer’ for purposes of the [Human Relations] Act, subject to the jurisdiction of the [Pennsylvania Human … The fact that the Commonwealth Court did not employ the magic words -- sovereign immunity -- is of no consequence, as the court clearly recognized SEPTA’s enabling statute and its existence as a Commonwealth Agency subject

John M. Gately and Patty Sue Gately v. Hamilton

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 22, 2015

The father and his current wife, as co-plaintiffs, argue that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that defendants' conduct is subject to protection under qualified statutory immunities … immunity.

Jackson v. City of Pittsburgh

688 F. Supp. 2d 379 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2010

Toledo, 446 U.S. 635 , 100 S.Ct. 1920 , 64 L.Ed.2d 572 (1980)). “ ‘The qualified immunity defense shields government agents from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … his or her actions violated clearly established law.”

Merriman v. Walton

856 F.2d 1333 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 7, 1988

The court characterized the question in terms of probable cause and an assertion of qualified immunity. … (albeit fact-specific) question whether a reasonable officer could have believed [the plaintiff's] warrantless [arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the searching officers possessed

Black v. Borough of Atlantic Highlands

263 N.J. Super. 445 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 6, 1993

Even if the Borough had not created the Shade Tree Commission, but had dealt directly with Aymonier, retention of a private contractor and reliance upon his services would clearly be a policy decision. … To ordinary landowners unprotected by statutory immunities, liability in tort to adjoining property owners may be established for damages proximately flowing from dangerous conditions caused by overhanging branches or matter

Harris v. District of Columbia

932 F.2d 10 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 10, 1991

This obligation, according to the court, was clearly established and appellants were therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. See id. at 17-19. … The concurrence also affords qualified immunity "on the additional ground that, even if the right was clearly established, the facts ... do not make out a violation of that right.” Concurring op. at 363.

Phillip D. Carlson and Thomas R. Smith v. Mary E. Gorecki

374 F.3d 461 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 23, 2004

Finally, based on this record, Górecki is not entitled to qualified immunity. … The cloak of qualified immunity is removed from a government official if the plaintiffs show that the law prohibiting the government official’s conduct was “clearly established.” Gregorich v.

Sharon Anderson v. Mario Cornejo, Appeals Of: Sergei Hoteko, Patrick Noonan, and Robert Trotter

355 F.3d 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 21, 2004

Three of the defendants in this Bivens action have taken interlocutory appeals, contending that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Similarly, the knowledge of prosecutors (and judges) that most defendants in crack-cocaine cases are black does not establish discrimination.