Case law

Weyant v. Okst

101 F.3d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 3, 1996

clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did not violate those rights. … Qualified immunity does not protect those who are " 'plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.' " Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. at 229 , 112 S.Ct. at 537 (quoting Malley v.

Paterek v. Village of Armada, Michigan

801 F.3d 630 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 8, 2015

Qualified Immunity Delecke asserts immunity as a public official even if Plaintiffs’ rights were violated. … Delecke’s claim for qualified immunity.

Hawkins v. Steingut

829 F.2d 317 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 18, 1987

We hold that defendants did not violate any of Hawkins' clearly-established federal rights by failing to reappoint him, and therefore the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … The court found that the individual Board members were not entitled to qualified immunity from suit, apparently on the theory that Hawkins had a clearly-established first amendment right not to be terminated from his job

Bruns v. Halford

913 F. Supp. 1295 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Jan 23, 1996

Bruns violated no clearly *1298 established constitutional rights, and therefore defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Mr. … Bruns has stated a due process claim under governing law, are defendants entitled to qualified immunity from that claim, because their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional principles?

Ricardo Glover v. Kevin A. Carr

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 6, 2020

Holzmacher would surely be entitled to qualified immunity. In order for Dr. … Holzmacher is not presently a party to the litigation, we decline to resolve the matter of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is a personal defense, Walker v.

K.O. v. Sessions, III

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 23, 2020

On the “clearly established” prong, “[t]he dispositive question is ‘whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’’’ Abassi, 137 S. Ct. at 1866 (quoting Mullenix v. … conduct is clearly established.

Martin v. Department of Children and Family Services

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Nov 13, 2020

immunity and that Plaintiffs have failed to overcome qualified immunity by establishing a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.36 Defendants claim that heightened pleading is needed in qualified immunity … immunity.”120 To overcome the claim of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that Defendants violated a statutory or constitutional right and that the right was clearly established at the time of

Steven Melton v. City of Forrest City, Arkansas

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 13, 2025

immunity fails.”); Burnham, 119 F.3d at 680 (holding that the employer’s “failure to establish workplace disruption . . . is fatal to his claim of qualified immunity under a Pickering analysis”). … Sexton, 210 F.3d at 914 (holding that the constitutional violation was clearly established despite having to conduct the Pickering balancing).

Fitzpatrick v. McKnight

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jul 3, 2025

which could be characterized as fraudulent, malicious, or oppressive,” (ECF No. 15 at 7), but evidently forgot that he is not entitled to qualified immunity if his act was “in violation of clearly established statutory … If the plaintiff demonstrates the violation of a clearly established right or law, the employee is not immune from liability. Jd. at 767.

Ramirez v. Coughlin

919 F. Supp. 617 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 28, 1996

Qualified immunity “shields state officials from liability where they did not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Wright v. … “Even if established, therefore, qualified immunity is not grounds for dismissing all of [plaintiffs] claims.” Id.

Ken Mouille, Leroy Liberda v. The City of Live Oak, Texas, Mark E. Jackley, Douglas Faesler, and Timothy Britt

977 F.2d 924 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 15, 1993

Liberda appeals certain jury instructions and Britt reasserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. We find that Britt is enti-tied to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity — Britt Britt answers Liberda’s Section 1983 claims with the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity determinations implicate a multi-faceted framework.

(PS) Ward v. Upshaw

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 4, 2025

However, this court need not decide that 3 question because it is apparent that the officer defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 4 There was, at the time of plaintiff’s detention, no “clearly established” First … Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 13 7 (2015) (a right is not clearly established for qualified immunity purposes unless existing 8 precedent “squarely governs” the specific facts at issue).

Williams v. Hansen

326 F.3d 569 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 22, 2003

clearly established in February 1996. … Because the plaintiffs have made out valid claims for the denial of a clearly established constitutional right, the district court correctly denied Hansen's motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

Jones v. Collin College

District Court, E.D. Texas · Aug 25, 2022

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from suit “unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” DePree v. … ” of qualified immunity); Zuniga v.

STOKES v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2022

Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 778 (2014) (“An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was ‘clearly established’ … Therefore, the qualified immunity analysis involves determining whether the defendant violated a right that was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. Plumhoff, 572 U.S. at 778.

Farrow v. Weatherford City of

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 26, 2025

The Individual Defendants argue, in part, that Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim is barred by qualified immunity because Plaintiff cannot show he had a “clearly established” constitutional right that they violated.5 They … plaintiffs “failed to identify clearly-established law” as required under the second qualified immunity prong). IV.

Begin v. Drouin

908 F.3d 829 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 16, 2018

An exception applies when such an order rejects a qualified immunity defense tendered in response to a claim of official malfeasance in violation of section 1983. … What the law does or does not clearly establish for purposes of assessing a qualified immunity defense is itself a question of law. See Morse v.

GAB Business Services, Inc. v. Moore

829 S.W.2d 345 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Apr 14, 1992

First, the evidence does not clearly establish that GAB was an agent of the Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool. … We are not persuaded that GAB is entitled to official or governmental immunity. The trial court committed no error in refusing to grant a directed verdict on the basis of governmental immunity.

Munden v. Pineda

District Court, D. Colorado · Nov 8, 2024

The “record must clearly demonstrate the plaintiff has satisfied his heavy two-part burden; otherwise, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.” Felders ex rel. Smedley v. … The Court therefore finds that Officer Pineda is entitled to qualified immunity for Mr.

Lindsey v. Storey

936 F.2d 554 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 23, 1991

Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers performing discretionary functions from suit for all violations except those of clearly established law. Harlow v. … But, again, Storey is entitled to qualified immunity unless he clearly lacked the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the search.