Case law

Peggy Kelley v. Mark Myler, Gene Patrick, Ralph Bell and Hurricane Foods, Inc.

149 F.3d 641 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 13, 1998

The court also found that because the arrest was reasonable, the officers did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights, and thus were entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. … Whether a defendant is entitled to a qualified immunity defense depends on the objective legal reasonableness of the defendant’s actions assessed in light of clearly established law.

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.

United States v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief & Development

445 F.3d 771 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 4, 2006

“The [appellant] must clearly and specifically set forth facts sufficient to satisfy these Art. Ill standing requirements. … “It is well-established that one panel of our court will not overturn another absent an intervening precedent by our court sitting en banc or a Supreme Court precedent.” FDIC v.

Rondigo, L.L.C. v. Township of Richmond

641 F.3d 673 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 1, 2011

P. 12(b)(6), so we review an assertion of qualified immunity to determine only whether the complaint ‘adequately alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law.’” (quoting Mitchell v. … When the qualified immunity defense is raised at the pleading stage, the court must determine only whether the complaint “adequately alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law.”

Ronald Mendoza v. Sherman Block, Los Angeles County

27 F.3d 1357 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 31, 1994

“[W]hen qualified immunity is at stake, [however], a court must first determine whether the law has been clearly established.” Romero, 931 F.2d at 628 . … Objective Reasonableness If the law governing an official’s conduct is clearly established, qualified immunity is available if a reasonable official could have believed the conduct at issue was lawful under that clearly established

EVANS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 5, 2026

right was clearly established at the time of the violation. … the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established right.”

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.

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

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.”)

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

David Picray v. Christopher Duffitt

652 F. App'x 497 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 6, 2016

established for purposes of qualified immunity. … Under the clearly established prong of qualified immunity, “[t]he dispositive question is ‘whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’” Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S.

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’”).

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.’”

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

Fogarty v. Gallegos

523 F.3d 1147 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 18, 2008

On appeal, defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on both counts because Fogarty’s evidence falls short of establishing a deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right. … they violated was clearly established.

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.

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.

Boyd v. City of Warren

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 30, 2020

App’x 384, 388 (6th Cir. 2008) (“Because our cases clearly established Lawler’s right to be free from gratuitous force during booking, the district court properly denied Toro qualified immunity.” … In contrast to qualified immunity, this inquiry is subjective. See id. But McCabe and Masserang not only have the initial burden on summary judgment, they also have the burden of establishing governmental immunity.

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.

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.