Case law

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).

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

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.

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

(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.

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.

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.

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.

Betty Willingham, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. James Loughnan, Brian Buecler, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees

321 F.3d 1299 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 18, 2003

The Officer Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for their acts unless they — -given the circumstances — violated a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right[] of which a reasonable person would have … And we, in the absence of particularized caselaw, have acted to deny qualified immunity to officials whose use of force clearly exceeded the “hazy border” surrounding acceptable force.

in Re the State of Texas, Ex. Rel. Joe D. Gonzales, District Attorney, Bexar County

Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Aug 28, 2019

clearly controlling legal principles.” … See Weeks, 391 S.W.3d at 122 (“an issue of first impression can sometimes qualify for mandamus relief when the factual scenario has never been precisely addressed but the principle of law has been clearly established.”)

Harbert International, Inc. v. James

157 F.3d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 14, 1998

clearly established law. … clearly established law, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects him.