Case law

HARDIMAN v. CHIEF

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 11, 2021

Qualified Immunity Standard "'Public officials are immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they have "violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established … Because "[t]he principle of fair notice pervades the doctrine" of qualified immunity, "clearly established law cannot be framed at a 'high level of generality.'"

Lakey v. Taylor

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · May 16, 2024

Finally, because the right at issue is clearly established, officer Miller is not entitled to qualified immunity. … It was clearly established that once Mr.

Veeder v. Nutting

588 F. App'x 18 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 15, 2014

Our jurisdiction, however, is “limited to circumstances where the qualified immunity defense may be established as a matter of law.” Escalera v. … The District Court also erred in not granting qualified immunity to defendants Hogan and Port for opening the suicide notes because they did not violate clearly established law. See Pearson v.

Grigorescu v. Board of Trustees of the San Mateo County Community College District

District Court, N.D. California · May 24, 2024

“When the defendants are public officials asserting a qualified immunity 18 defense and the appealed issue is whether a given set of facts establishes that defendants violated 19 clearly established law,” the order … The 9 Ninth Circuit denied the principal qualified immunity, stating that the plaintiff’s “right to express 10 political views, even as a public school teacher, is clearly established.

Gellos

District Court, D. Arizona · Jan 30, 2026

Qualified Immunity 14 Qualified immunity shields state actors “from liability for civil damages insofar as 15 their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The Court, in its discretion, 26 can “address the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity test first.”

David King v. Timothy Riley

76 F.4th 259 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 4, 2023

The prison guards on duty failed to violate a clearly established right so are entitled to qualified immunity. … And qualified immunity cares about violations of clearly established constitutional law, not clearly established prison policy.

Pitts v. United States

228 F. Supp. 3d 412 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 6, 2017

Jones, 225 F.3d 468, 470 (4th Cir. 2000) (“Rule 41(e) does not contain a waiver of sovereign immunity.”); Pena v. … established Fourth Amendment rights”); Crawford v.

Texas Department of Public Safety and Steven McCraw in His Official Capacity as Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety v. Maria Luisa Mejia Sunuc, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Marcos Antonio Castro Estrada, and as Next Friend to L.M. and H.M., Minors

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Feb 3, 2022

Alternatively, DPS argued that it could conclusively establish that its troopers were entitled to official immunity, thereby cloaking DPS in derivative immunity. See DeWitt v. … Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378–81 (2007) (holding that video evidence can conclusively establish that an officer is entitled to qualified immunity from an excessive force claim). 5 DPS’s primary argument on appeal is that

Baron v. Lissade

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 27, 2021

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. Pauly, 137 S. … Because there is no clearly established law on this circuit that fabrication of evidence during an administrative bench trial ever violates the Constitution, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Simms v. Rivers

District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 12, 2024

Clark, 1 F. 4th 411, 421 (5th Cir. 2021) (denying qualified immunity on the basis that prior precedent “clearly established that pretrial detainees have a Fourteenth Amendment right to medical care”). … Because this right was clearly established, they are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Horn v. Adger

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 9, 2025

5 Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (explaining that qualified immunity protects government of- 6 ficials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or con- 7 stitutional … City of New York, 4 374 F.3d 93, 117 (2d Cir. 2004) (explaining that “a qualified immunity argument made” at a trial 5 on excessive force and battery claims “could not preserve a defense of qualified immunity to the

Troy K. Scheffler v. Jack Molin

743 F.3d 619 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 25, 2014

Molin argued that Scheffler’s constitutional rights had not been violated and that, regardless, the defense of qualified immunity applied. … When the defense of qualified immunity has been asserted, we evaluate both whether the defendant violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights and whether those rights were clearly established. Chambers v.

McCoy (ID 76894) v. Aramark Correctional Services

District Court, D. Kansas · Feb 16, 2024

This right likely does not exist, and certainly is not clearly estab- lished, so qualified immunity requires dismissal. See Pearson v. … Coats and Zmuda are therefore enti- tled to qualified immunity. See, e.g., Stewart v.

Jackson v. Mercy Health Center, Inc.

64 O.B.A.J. 3587 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 30, 1993

The Hospital was clearly within the Act’s protection when its personnel escorted the visitor out of the surgery area, seated him on the bed in the hallway, and then redirected their attention to the wife. … The Hospital was clearly responding to an apparent emergency that called for immediate action. THE COURT OF APPEALS’ OPINION IS VACATED AND THE TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT REINSTATED AND AFFIRMED.

Aurea E. Vazquez Rios v. Rafael Hernandez Colon, Etc.

819 F.2d 319 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 20, 1987

Certainly, the law was not in any sense “clearly established” to the contrary. … , have granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on the basis of their qualified immunity.

Watson v. Cook

District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 4, 2025

Once an officer pleads qualified immunity, the plaintiffhas the burden to establish that the officer violated the plaintiff s clearly established federal rights. Jd. at 1088. “This is a demanding standard.” … City of Palestine, 333 F.3d 621, 623 (Sth Cir. 2003) (“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.”’).

Camreta v. Greene

563 U.S. 692 · Supreme Court of the United States · May 26, 2011

But the Court of Appeals further held that qualified immunity shielded the officials from monetary liability because the constitutional right at issue was not clearly established under existing law. … Many Courts of Appeals therefore decline to consider district court precedent when determining if constitutional rights are clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. See, e.g., Kalka v.

DOWNS v. BOROUGH OF JENKINTOWN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2020

“The test for qualified immunity is objective.” Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120, 142 n.15 (3d Cir. 2001). … Litig., 49 F.3d 945, 961 (3d Cir. 1995) (“[I]f the law was established clearly, the official still may obtain qualified immunity if he claims ‘extraordinary circumstances and can prove that he neither knew nor should have

Wahad v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

813 F. Supp. 224 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 29, 1993

Lott counters the Bivens , claim by arguing that he is entitled to a qualified immunity defense. … On a summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity grounds, the Court is to determine the law applicable to the claim, whether it was clearly established at the time of the action, and if Defendant should have known

Hopps v. City of Tampa

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 24, 2025

“In assessing qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage, ‘the qualified immunity inquiry and the Rule 12(b)(6) standard become intertwined.’” Aguirre-Jarquin v. … See Wilson, 54 F. 4th at 660 (“[I]t is not necessary to decide both prongs [of the qualified immunity analysis] where it is plain that the right is not clearly established.”).