Case law

Tidwell v. Gomez

District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 1, 2021

Serpas, 745 F.3d 767, 771 (Sth Cir. 2014) (“Once the defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, ‘the burden shifts to the plaintiff to rebut this defense by establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct … violated clearly established law.’”

Michael Smith v. Yates

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 13, 2019

See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011) (explaining two-part test for qualified immunity); Hines v. … Youseff, 914 F.3d 1218, 1229-30 (9th Cir. 2019) (existing Valley Fever cases did not clearly establish a “right to be free from heightened exposure to Valley Fever spores”).

OKWUEGO v. CORREIA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 7, 2024

But even if this were addressed, it is not clear that the Plaintiff could get over the qualified immunity hurdle here. … (1) violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”)

Granderson v. Graulau

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Apr 16, 2025

the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … Evans, 90 F.4th 541, 548 (6th Cir. 2024) (the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff’s cursory briefing makes no attempt to meet his burden of showing that the defendant violated his clearly

Estep v. Combs

District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jun 17, 2020

This would cloak Combs in qualified immunity. See Phillips, 786 F. … See, e.g., DE 55-1 at 16–18, 21–22.21 However, the Sixth Circuit has explicitly held that “freedom from excessively forceful or unduly tight handcuffing is a clearly established right for purposes of qualified immunity

Clark v. Dunn

195 W. Va. 272 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1995

The one difference in immunity cases is that the official’s act must be shown to have violated clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. … [the West Virginia Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Refoim Act], is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which

Sullivan v. Coney

427 S.W.3d 682 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 23, 2013

right is clearly established, and (3) raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right. … that his conduct violated that clearly established right.

Kong v. Burnsville, City of

District Court, D. Minnesota · Dec 14, 2018

See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 237 (encouraging courts to decide qualified immunity defenses on the “clearly established “prong” when “it is plain that a constitutional right is not clearly established but far from obvious whether … judgment in a qualified immunity case.”

Reynolds-Marshall v. Hallum

162 B.R. 51 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 29, 1993

That rule provides that “[findings of fact ... shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.” B.R. 8013. This Court will review determinations of law de novo. A. … In Davenport , the Supreme Court indicated that the legislative history of the Bankruptcy Code “reflects Congress’ broad rather than restrictive view of the class of obligations that qualify as a ‘claim’ giving rise to a

Generis Ent., LLC v. Mary Anne Donley

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 19, 2026

Trooper Bitner moved to dismiss Generis’ complaint, arguing, in relevant part, that qualified immunity shielded him from suit because the liquor inspection search was not pretextual and no clearly established law placed … The district denied Trooper Bitner’s demand for qualified immunity, 3 finding that Generis had plausibly alleged a pretextual use of inspection authority for criminal investigation and that this violated clearly established

Wilcox v. Batiste

360 F. Supp. 3d 1112 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Dec 21, 2018

Qualified Immunity The parties also dispute whether Chief Batiste is entitled to qualified immunity from monetary damages. 3 ECF No. 35 at 9; ECF No. 56 at 14. … The Court begins by assessing whether the right that Chief Batiste is alleged to have violated is clearly established. *1124 A right from a federal statute or the constitution is clearly established when a reasonable official

Cunningham ex rel Gaines v. Baltimore Cnty.

487 Md. 282 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 2024

Because the law was not clearly established at the time, qualified immunity is proper. … Alternatively, the Defendants argued that Corporal Ruby was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law.

Joseph Walton, as Next Friend of Christopher Walton, a Minor v. Alma Alexander, Alma Alexander

20 F.3d 1350 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 1, 1994

State officials are protected by qualified immunity for alleged constitutional torts if their conduct does not violate clearly established law effective at the time of the alleged tort. Harlow v. … Therefore, the first step in examining a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity is to determine whether the plaintiff has “al-leg[ed] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Siegert v.

Gonzales v. Jeri Bolton

District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 1, 2021

Serpas, 745 F.3d 767, 771 (Sth Cir. 2014) (“Once the defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, ‘the burden shifts to the plaintiff to rebut this defense by establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct … violated clearly established law.’”

Penate v. Kaczmarek

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 7, 2018

A defendant is entitled to the protection of qualified immunity when his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. … Hughes, 138 S.Ct. 1148, 1152 (2018) (holding that qualified immunity protected a police officer in a Fourth Amendment context because the officer’s conduct did not violate clearly established law) (quotations omitted).

Boyle Ventures, LLC v. City of Fayetteville

711 S.W.3d 280 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 15, 2025

“A motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated the constitutional right is clearly established and raised a genuine … 21  would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right.

Melvin Alan Wood v. Michael Kesler, individually and in his capacity as an Alabama State Trooper, Brian Jones

323 F.3d 872 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 4, 2003

General Principles “Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201.

Rouse v. Florio

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 30, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … established at the time for qualified immunity purposes).

Williams v. City & County of Denver

99 F.3d 1009 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 6, 1996

The employee is entitled to qualified immunity either if the law was not clearly established or if his conduct did not violate the law. … To summarize, we affirm the grant of qualified immunity to defendants individually on the ground that the law was not clearly established.

Altshuler v. City of Seattle

63 Wash. App. 389 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 18, 1991

Kitsap Cy., supra (police officers entitled to qualified immunity where nature and scope of plaintiffs' right to gather shellfish not clearly established); cf. Harper v. … To overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must do more than identify a clearly established legal test and then allege that the defendant has violated it.