Case 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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Thompson v. Reuting

968 F.2d 756 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 7, 1992

Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 , 106 S.Ct. 1092 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986), the Supreme Court held that police officers seeking arrest warrants are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions unless “the warrant application is so … We therefore affirm the District Court’s dismissal of Thompson’s complaint on the ground that Reuting was entitled to qualified immunity for his actions. III.

Hanrahan v. Doling

331 F.3d 93 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 30, 2003

and Magistrate Judge below. 10 In evaluating whether a right is clearly established for purposes of the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, the court looks to both "the clarity of the law establishing the right … It would defy logic to analyze qualified immunity, as defendants urge, in terms of unpredictable subsequent events, and courts have repeatedly declined to frame the clearly established inquiry through the "20/20 vision of

Prokop v. Hileman

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 2, 2022

“The doctrine of qualified immunity 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 … Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 12 (2015) (“The dispositive question” for qualified immunity is “whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.”)

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.

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.