Case law

Romero v. Sanchez

119 N.M. 690 · New Mexico Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1995

Believing Officer Sanchez violated clearly established law, we held that he was not entitled to qualified immunity. … The Act was passed prior to the genesis of the modern qualified immunity law established in Harlow.

Bruce Joiner v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 27, 2020

Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 195 (1996) (noting the “established practice of construing waivers of sovereign immunity narrowly in favor of the sovereign”). … These recitations are insufficient to establish that further discovery will overcome the discretionary function exception and defeat sovereign immunity.

The Estate of Roosevelt Holliman v. Turner

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Sep 1, 2023

constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Once qualified immunity has been “raised as a defense by a defendant, … the plaintiffs have the burden of establishing the proof and arguments necessary to overcome it.” Strickland v. City of Crenshaw, 114 F.

Collvins v. Hackford

523 F. App'x 515 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 3, 2013

To defeat a defense of qualified immunity on summary judgment, however, the plaintiff carries the burden of establishing that the defendant violated a constitutional right which was clearly established. … The district court held that because there is no clearly established law indicating that the delay in Mr. Collvins’ hearing was unconstitutional, he was entitled to qualified immunity. Again, we agree.

Williams v. The City of Jackson

District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Sep 29, 2021

that defeat a qualified[-]immunity defense with equal specificity.” … that the law is clearly established”).

Lucero v. Mathews

901 P.2d 1115 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Aug 28, 1995

Clearly Established Law Qualified immunity generally shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when their conduct “ ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or … “In order to find qualified immunity, the objective legal reasonableness of a government official’s conduct is assessed in the light of the clearly established statutory or constitutional rights at the time of the action.

Smith v. Washtenaw Intermediate School District

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jan 24, 2020

Qualified immunity will apply when the injury Plaintiff alleges is taken by the collective action of Defendants, not individual defendants. See Humphrey v. … Mabry, 482 F.3d 840, 847 (6th Cir. 2007) (individual officers are entitled to qualified immunity even when they collectively had sufficient knowledge to figure out that they were violating the plaintiff’s clearly established

C.F. v. Capistrano Unified School District

656 F. Supp. 2d 1190 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 15, 2009

established’ to preclude qualified immunity.” … Thus, the doctrine of qualified immunity looks to whether there was a clearly established right in issue.

City of Highfill, Arkansas; Jeffery Brenaman, in His Official and Individual Capacities; And Mayor Michelle Rieff, in Her Official and Individual Capacities v. Shana Scantlin and Tammy Ridenhour

2025 Ark. App. 242 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 23, 2025

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. … Under our qualified-immunity analysis, however, we agree that even if Scantlin and Ridenhour have asserted a violation of a clearly established right under the Act, they have failed to raise a genuine issue of fact as to

Junior v. Reed

693 So. 2d 586 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 20, 1997

The trial court should have sustained Commissioner Junior's claim of qualified immunity, however, because the conduct forming the basis of the complaint by the Reeds does not amount to a violation of a clearly established … To qualify as a "clearly established" right as that phrase is used in Harlow v.

Commonwealth v. Robinson

399 Pa. Super. 199 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 1990

Appellant’s second issue relates to the expert testimony offered by the Commonwealth to establish that the drugs possessed by appellant were for delivery to others, rather than for personal use. … If accepted by the jury, as it clearly was, it provided an adequate basis upon which to conclude that the Commonwealth proved the intent to deliver element of the crime charged. Commonwealth v.

Lawson v. S.W.V.R.J.A.

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Feb 3, 2020

Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 736 (2002) (“The threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether plaintiff’s allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.”) … Furthermore, “[u]nless 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.”

D.M. v. State

25 Neb. Ct. App. 596 · Nebraska Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 2018

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity provides a shield from liability for public officials sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) in their individual capacities, so long as the official's conduct does not violate clearly established … Next, we consider whether this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Carla Blake v. Don Lambert

921 F.3d 215 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 5, 2019

The district court denied qualified immunity. … “Once invoked, a plaintiff bears the burden of rebutting qualified immunity by showing two things: (1) that the officials violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established at the

Dupree v. Village of Bellwood

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 13, 2022

Even if they did, they maintain that they are entitled to qualified immunity because none of their actions violated clearly established law. … Officers sometimes make mistakes; qualified immunity works to immunize them from damages suits arising from those mistakes so long as there is no transgression of clearly established law.

Cherry Knoll, L.L.C. v. HDR Engineering, Incorpora

922 F.3d 309 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 22, 2019

In response, Jones moved to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability when they are acting within their discretionary authority and their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law of which a reasonable

Frasier v. Evans

992 F.3d 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 29, 2021

Frasier’s clearly established First Amendment rights—and the district court itself said they did not—then the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. … - established-law component of the qualified-immunity standard.

Konsionowski v. Sikorski

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Mar 2, 2022

The Court cannot grant Officer Sikorski qualified immunity if his actions would violate a clearly established constitutional right under either. It has been clearly established since at least Terry v. … Under Nettles-Bey, Officer Sikorski is not entitled to qualified immunity where one view of the disputed facts would result in a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Kevin Simmons v. G. Arnett

47 F.4th 927 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 31, 2022

clearly established. … In concluding that Officer Arnett did not violate clearly established law on an incomplete view of the relevant facts, the majority’s approach diverges from the one established by qualified immunity precedent in this circuit

Donnetta Smith v. Stoneburner

716 F.3d 926 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 10, 2013

In this qualified immunity case, as in all qualified immunity cases, two questions arise: whether the officers violated the Smiths’ constitutional rights, and if so whether those rights were clearly established at the time … Two appellate decisions, it is true, granted qualified immunity to officers on not- clearly-established grounds, but they each involved a fact pattern at least one prominent step removed from this one. In Malachowski v.