Case law

Gawloski v. Dallman

803 F. Supp. 103 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 16, 1992

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Prison officials performing discretionary duties are entitled to qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established constitutional law of which a reasonable prison official would have … Once a defendant raises a qualified immunity argument in a motion for summary judgement, a plaintiff must satisfy a two prong test: “First, the allegations must state a claim of violation of clearly established law.

Fred Watson v. Eddie Boyd, III

2 F.4th 1106 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 30, 2021

or statutory right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.’” … Accordingly, because of the district court’s incomplete analysis on both the constitutional violation and clearly established prongs, we can neither affirm nor reverse the denial of qualified immunity.

MACK v. AVERTEST, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2020

Darrah would be entitled to qualified immunity if reasonable officials in her position “could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct comported with established legal standards.” … Supp. at 335 (“A qualified immunity only protects defendants if it can be shown that they did not violate any clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Brodie Faughn and Billy Colvin v. Alfred Kennedy and Wayne Kennedy

2019 Ark. App. 570 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 4, 2019

Qualified immunity protects an officer from liability in an excessive-force case unless the officer’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known … The second step of the qualified-immunity inquiry—whether the constitutional or statutory right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct— requires the victim to point to a previously decided

Dontrell Stephens v. Ric Bradshaw

879 F.3d 1157 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 10, 2018

the allegedly violated right was clearly established by governing case law. … Yet, Deputy Lin would still be entitled to qualified immunity if the law were not clearly established.

Ascent Energy, LLC v. Reach Wireline, LLC

District Court, D. New Mexico · Aug 18, 2021

to dismiss that attack the Court’s jurisdiction or motions for summary judgment which raise qualified immunity, would be contrary to the disfavored status of stays. Id. at 5 (citing New Mexico ex rel. … Courts do routinely stay discovery for summary judgment motions on the basis of qualified immunity, and for motions to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds. See, e.g., Workman v.

Neil Nyber v. City of Battle Creek

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 2026

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. … The clearly established prong of the qualified immunity inquiry sets a high standard, and the United States Supreme Court has “aggressively enforced qualified immunity.” Morden, 275 Mich App 340-341.

Town of Southwest Ranches v. Kalam

980 So. 2d 1121 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 12, 2008

a clearly established right). … As Kalam’s complaint fails to show that the town officials’ conduct violated his rights in light of clearly established law, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from suit.

Williams v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety

District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Jul 7, 2025

Reaching only the first element, the Court finds Williams has not sufficiently rebutted qualified immunity “by establishing that [Tindell’s] allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.” , 117 F.3d … Reaching only the first element, the Court finds Williams has not sufficiently rebutted qualified immunity “by establishing that [Tindell’s] allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.” , 117 F.3d at 872

Keith Hardesty v. Waterworks District 4 of Ward

621 F. App'x 771 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 14, 2015

“[A] defendant cannot be said to have violated a clearly established right unless the right’s misconduct through the lens of the “objective reasonableness”/”clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity analysis … the Board Defendants qualified immunity.

the Estate of Emzie Allen, Gloria Brown, Ind., and on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries v. Polly Ryon Hospital Authority D/B/A Polly Ryon Memorial Hospital and Suklesh Dandona, M.D.

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Mar 3, 2005

purported expert is qualified. … that the person rendering the opinion . . . is a qualified medical expert.”)

Jack Harris, II v. City of Roseburg, Municipal Corporation, John Miller and Les Bergman

664 F.2d 1121 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 28, 1981

Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 321-22 , 95 S.Ct. 992, 1000-1001 , 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975), the Court held that the qualified immunity granted to public officials requires elements of both “objective” and “subjective” good faith. … Strickland rule, the immunity defense would be unavailing to petitioners if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have

Gutshall v. New Prime, Inc.

196 F.R.D. 43 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jul 19, 2000

The work product doctrine is not a "privilege,” but a sort of "qualified immunity” from discovery, originally established in Hickman v.

Smith v. Harris

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 … he sat restrained in handcuffs— was not clearly established at the time of the incident.

Leo v. Trevino

285 S.W.3d 470 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Jun 8, 2006

Constitutional Violation The first prong of any analysis of the availability of qualified immunity requires the establishment of the violation of a “clearly established right.” Beck, 204 F.3d at 638. … The School District Employees are entitled to qualified immunity from the Trevinos’ claims, absent a showing of a violation of “clearly established constitutional law.”

Constantine v. Rectors and Visitors of George Mason University

411 F.3d 474 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 13, 2005

In the qualified-immunity context, the Supreme Court has stressed "the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation." Saucier v. … GMU waived whatever Eleventh Amendment immunity it had when it accepted federal funds under a statute that clearly and unambiguously conditioned receipt of such funds on a waiver of immunity.

Ministerio Roca Solida v. Sharon McKelvey

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 4, 2016

Additionally, the Court finds that qualified immunity does not apply.” … Ct. 2074, 2080 (2011) (“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages . . . .”).

Carrillo v. Rostro

114 N.M. 607 · New Mexico Supreme Court · Aug 28, 1992

Applying this proposition to a request for qualified immunity, we examine whether the opposing party has presented evidence to support a violation of clearly established law, so as to require a trial on the merits. … Finding that plaintiff had this clearly established right, however, does not quite dispose of the qualified-immunity issue in this case, because in order to determine whether defendants unconstitutionally infringed her right

Antonio v. Board of County Commissioners for the County of Cibola

District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 2, 2020

Although this determination ends the qualified immunity analysis in favor of Defendants Lucero and Hildenbrant, the Court also will examine whether Plaintiff meets the second qualified immunity prong, the “clearly established … For the above reasons, the Court determines that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she meets the clearly established right requirement, the second qualified immunity prong, necessary to defeat qualified immunity.

Lyons v. City of Lewiston

666 A.2d 95 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 19, 1995

“The two-part test for denial of qualified immunity is (1) whether the plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated, and (2) whether those rights were so clearly established that reasonable defendants would have known that … As we have recently stated, The application of the qualified immunity doctrine turns on the “objective legal reasonableness” of the official’s action viewed in fight of the “clearly established” legal rules at the time the