Case law

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

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.

Jamal Murray v. State of Ohio Dep't of Corrections

29 F.4th 779 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 30, 2022

motion is based on a claim of qualified immunity.” … Heyd is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law We now consider the merits of the qualified-immunity defense.

Blackwell v. Barton

34 F.3d 298 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 20, 1994

The first inquiry in the examination of a defendant's claim of qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Siegert v. … Qualified Immunity Barton is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of his conduct. Pfannstiel, 918 F.2d at 1183.

Farag v. United States

587 F. Supp. 2d 436 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 24, 2008

the defense of qualified immunity, which “shields government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “As a general rule, police officers are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did

Deputy J.K. Maston v. Thomas Jefferson Wagner

236 W. Va. 488 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 10, 2015

the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known.”).9 A public officer is entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts, even if committed negligently … A litigant may pierce the shield of qualified immunity by showing that a government official has violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

City of Saint Albans v. Botkins

228 W. Va. 393 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 23, 2011

As to the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry— whether the constitutional standards were clearly established at the time in question— the Ninth Circuit concluded it should be answered by applying the same test the … Is there qualified immunity?

Lewis v. City of Burnsville

District Court, D. Minnesota · Oct 31, 2019

Therefore, at minimum, Frascone has qualified immunity. See Brown v. … City of Golden Valley, 574 F.3d 491, 496 (8th Cir. 2009) (explaining that to defeat qualified immunity, a plaintiff most show both the existence of a right and that the right was clearly established at the time of the

Bisetti v. City Of Austin

District Court, W.D. Texas · Sep 30, 2022

The qualified-immunity framework The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from suit and liability for damages under § 1983 unless their conduct violates a clearly established … Thus, in determining qualified immunity, courts engage in a two-step analysis: (1) was a statutory or constitutional right violated on the facts alleged; and (2) did the officer’s actions violate clearly established

McCollum v. Drewitz

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Oct 3, 2022

qualified immunity from suits for damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … immunity” because the law at the time did not clearly establish that his doing so violated McCollum’s rights.

Robinson v. Beaumont

291 Ark. 477 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 16, 1987

This immunity is guaranteed so long as the actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the complaint fails to state a claim of violation of clearly established law the defense of qualified immunity is appropriate and the suit should not be allowed to proceed.

Vinzant v. King

464 U.S. 965 · Supreme Court of the United States · Nov 7, 1983

Bissell v. Mata

District Court, W.D. Texas · Jun 16, 2025

The Fifth Circuit held that the child protective workers were entitled to qualified immunity because the right to family integrity was not clearly established under those facts. … entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

Reynolds v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 12, 2019

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights 1 The doctrine of qualified immunity attempts to balance two important and sometimes competing 2 interests: “the need to hold public officials accountable when … 14 spores—was not clearly established at the time”); Horton v.

McCary

District Court, D. Delaware · Nov 24, 2025

Plaintiffs do not claim any Eighth Amendment issue in their complaint, however, and even if they had, Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity for the alleged verbal threats, given the existence of a number of … Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 62-63 (2018) (noting that “officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983” unless they violate a constitutional right established by a “settled law” that has been “dictated by controlling authority

Vaseleros-Stevenson v. Calvert County, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 17, 2021

Plaintiff frequently viisconstrues the “clearly established” prong of the analysis. … He is clearly entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiffs § 1983 claim asserted against him is therefore DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. B.

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.