Case law

Alejandro Hernandez v. The City of El Paso

397 F. App'x 954 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 20, 2010

Because we conclude that Defendants’ actions did not violate Plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights, we reverse the denial of their motion for qualified immunity, and remand to the district court for entry … such activity violates clearly established constitutional rights.”

Palafox

District Court, D. Arizona · Mar 26, 2026

Qualified Immunity 22 A defendant in a § 1983 action is entitled to qualified immunity from damages for 23 civil liability if his conduct does not violate clearly established … The “qualified immunity 3 inquiry” asks if the right was clearly established at the relevant time.

Anthony J. Prisco, Jr. v. Dennis P. Talty, Individually T/a Zeitz and Talty Glenn A. Zeitz, Esq., Individually T/a Zeitz and Talty

993 F.2d 21 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 30, 1993

Based on well-established standards of statutory construction, we hold that, with one clearly stated exception, the 1984 amendments do not apply to a cause of action which had accrued prior to the effective date of their … There we concluded that the government’s conduct violated Prisco's clearly established constitutional due process rights.

Rocha

District Court, D. Colorado · Mar 10, 2026

Rocha’s constitutional rights in violation of clearly established law. See Pahls v. … - immunity analysis, where we ask whether a clearly established constitutional right has been violated.”)

Keith Cockrell v. City of Cincinnati

468 F. App'x 491 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 23, 2012

immunity still was appropriate, however, because law was not clearly established). … Because we resolve this case on the ‘clearly established' element of qualified immunity, we express no opinion on the constitutionality of Hall’s actions. .

Dayton v. City of Marco Island

District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 5, 2021

Qualified immunity protects government officials (sued individually) if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Because Plaintiffs cannot show a clearly established right, qualified immunity protects Brechnitz. See Fuqua v.

Pack

District Court, E.D. Missouri · May 18, 2026

Although Pack fails to plausibly allege that Officer Katterhenry or Officer Eder violated his rights, he fares still worse in attempting to show a violation of clearly established rights. … Quick, 909 F.3d 983, 985 (8th Cir. 2018) (noting a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless his “conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable

Cambre v. Smith

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Aug 29, 2019

’ conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of then-existing clearly established law. … Helpenstell, 626 Fed.Appx. 453, 459–60 (5th Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (construing Deville as clearly establishing that an officer should receive no qualified immunity if he ‘quickly escalate[s]’ an encounter with a non-threatening

Capogrosso v. Gelbstein

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 25, 2019

Eighth, Judge Bloom recommended that the Court deny the motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds because the State Defendants “fail to articulate the ‘clearly established right’ upon which they base their qualified … Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officers from suit so long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Art Tobias v. Michael Arteaga

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 27, 2021

We reverse the denial of qualified immunity on Tobias’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim because it was not clearly established that the abusive  TOBIAS V. … Defendants fail to establish their entitlement to qualified immunity is ‘beyond controversy.’”

Tarver v. City of Edna

410 F.3d 745 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 25, 2005

reasonable in light of clearly established law at the time the challenged conduct occurred. … Under the second step of qualified immunity analysis, Tarver must establish that Officer Bubela’s conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.

Waseem Daker v. Neil Warren

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 3, 2022

. § 1983, for failure to state a claim and qualified immunity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. … (repeating that an of- ficial is entitled to qualified immunity unless the “unlawfulness of [his] conduct was ‘clearly established at the time’”).

Cecere v. City of New York

967 F.2d 826 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 26, 1992

The defense of qualified immunity shields governmental officials from civil liability if the official’s conduct did not violate constitutional rights that were clearly established at the pertinent time or if it was objectively … When a qualified immunity is asserted in a motion for summary judgment, of course, the facts material to the claim of qualified immunity must not be genuinely disputed. We believe that Puryear sustained his claim.

Chiles v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections

467 F. App'x 801 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 15, 2012

Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 377 (2007) (holding that public officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff demonstrates that there is “a violation of a constitutional right” and that right is “clearly established … Jones was entitled to qualified immunity because neither Ms.

Carlyle v. Dejesus

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 30, 2020

Therefore, he has failed to show the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See Buford v. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (“Unless 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

United States v. Granvel E. Windom

19 F.3d 1190 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 24, 1994

Windom’s concern that his memory might have faded “is insufficient to *1196 establish that the delay impaired his defense.” Brock, 782 F.2d at 1447 . … Clearly, in light of the prevailing standard in this circuit, the evidence was sufficient to support Windom’s conviction on Count Seven. 2.

Schmidt v. Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Co.

426 N.W.2d 870 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Aug 5, 1988

The insurance policy between Midwest and Schmidt may not technically qualify as a contract of adhesion. Nevertheless, it possesses some earmarks of an adhesive contract. … The public policy of this state favoring the employment of arbitration is clearly and firmly established in our law. By our decisions it antedated the UAA. By enactment of the UAA it has been legislatively endorsed.

Akande v. Grounds

555 F.3d 586 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 9, 2009

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.

Rogers v. Pendleton

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 9, 2001

While a consensus of cases of persuasive authority may clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes, the inverse is also true: if there are no cases of controlling authority in the jurisdiction in question, and … if other appellate federal courts have split on the question of whether an asserted right exists, the right cannot be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.

Jazmine Bryant v. Bill Hensley

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 19, 2024

In Hunter and Payne’s view, that response failed to argue that qualified immunity did not apply to them. True, Bryant’s estate bears the burden of showing that qualified immunity does not apply. See Blake v. … Edmonson County, 18 F.4th 516, 530 (6th Cir. 2021) (holding that the defendant acted in bad faith and was “not eligible for state qualified immunity” under Kentucky law because he violated the plaintiff’s “clearly established