Case law

Carrera v. Yepez

6 S.W.3d 654 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Oct 28, 1999

Since qualified immunity turns on whether a defendant violated a clearly established right, a ‘necessary concomitant’ to that decision is determining ‘whether the plaintiff has asserted a violation of a constitutional right … WERE THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED?

Morant v. New Haven

District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 3, 2025

“Even in the absence of probable cause, a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity where (1) [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … See Weaver, 40 F.3d at 536–37 (recognizing that it was “clearly established [as early as] 1989 that police could not lawfully coerce incriminating statements from an in-person criminal suspect” and denying qualified immunity

Reuter v. City of New Hope

449 N.W.2d 745 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jan 2, 1990

Although the right to be free from unreasonable seizures is a clearly established right, the Supreme Court of the United States has said that a general constitutional violation alone does not dissolve the qualified immunity … The Reuters have presented no violation of a clearly established law. The Reuters assert that the case of Dick v.

Dimitris Desyllas v. Daniel Bernstine Roderic Diman John Fowler Rick Roe

351 F.3d 934 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 9, 2003

rights were clearly established. … Accordingly, we need not consider the second part of the qualified immunity analysis — whether the constitutional rights were clearly established. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Garcia v. County of Merced

639 F.3d 1206 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 5, 2011

The second question is whether the right was “clearly established.” Id. at 202. … A plaintiff can sur- vive summary judgment on a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity only “if the plaintiff can both establish a substantial showing of a deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard and establish that, without

Michael Hampton v. State of California

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 2023

Plaintiff’s due process right to familial association with her husband is therefore not “clearly established,” id. at 887 (quotation marks omitted), and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the familial-association … qualified immunity”). ** The Honorable Richard D.

Brown v. Meda

74 Md. App. 331 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 24, 1988

[emphasis added, bracketed material in original] As was clearly stated by the Court in Moore v. … The emphasized portion of that statement is simply another way of saying that, in a case involving complex medical procedures or the exercise of professional skill and judgment, a jury is not qualified to determine whether

Peerman v. Catron

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Nov 13, 2023

Qualified Immunity The Court therefore proceeds under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, and considers whether the right in question was “clearly established … qualified immunity.

Boyle v. Patridge

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 21, 2020

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. Pauly, --- U.S. ----, 137 S. … Minchuk, 910 F.3d 909, 918 (7th Cir. 2018) (“[A] dispute of fact regarding the circumstances surrounding an officer’s use of force may prevent us from determining whether an individual’s clearly established rights have

Leonard v. St. Charles County Police Department

District Court, E.D. Missouri · Nov 5, 2021

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Further, to overcome qualified immunity, precedent must have clearly established that each Individual Defendant’s own actions “in the particular circumstances” at issue violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights.

SWEENEY v. MULL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 11, 2022

Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 129–31 (1997) (prosecutor entitled to absolute immunity for preparing and filing documents, but not for personally swearing to the truth of facts establishing probable cause, which was the function … Litscher, 267 F.3d 648, 651–52 (7th Cir. 2001) (dismissal at pleading stage on qualified immunity grounds is often inappropriate because qualified immunity "usually depends" on the facts of the case).

Jefferson County Fiscal Court v. Peerce

132 S.W.3d 824 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Feb 23, 2004

is inapplicable to his § 1983 claims and qualified immunity does not protect the individually-named official Appellants because their actions clearly violated Appellee’s well-established statutory and constitutional rights … Conversely, if the official’s actions violated a clearly established right or law, the immunity is lost and the official is hable for the violation.

STATE OF MICHIGAN v. McQUEEN

493 Mich. 135 · Michigan Supreme Court · Feb 8, 2013

’s immunity provision clearly contemplates that a registered qualifying patient’s medical use of marijuana only occur for the purpose of alleviating his own debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with his debilitating … under § 4 of the MMMA inapplicable. *155 The text of § 4(d) establishes that the MMMA intends to allow “a qualifying patient or primary caregiver” to be immune from arrest, prosecution, or penalty only if conduct related

Hubbard v. Stout

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 23, 2018

Defendants are therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. Jones v. … Having found that the facts do not make out a constitutional violation, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See, e.g., Krout v.

A. D. v. State of Calif. Highway Patrol

712 F.3d 446 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 3, 2013

The Court then rejected the notion that the law, defined at such a level of generality, was “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes. … Markgraf is not entitled to qualified immunity, because Plaintiffs have shown that he violated the foregoing clearly established law.

Rico v. State

472 N.W.2d 100 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Jun 21, 1991

In section 1983 actions government officials are entitled to immunity from liability for damages unless the official’s conduct *108 violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Nevertheless, federal decisions interpreting qualified immunity under section 1983, though certainly not conclusive, are instructive when we examine an official immunity issue because section 1983 qualified immunity and common

Apothio, LLC v. Kern County

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 27, 2023

immunity. … that was clearly established at the time of Defendant’s alleged 14 misconduct).

Sossamon v. Lone Star St Texas

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 17, 2009

As for the individual-capacity claims for damages under the First Amendment, we note that the defendants who Sossamon sued enjoy qualified immunity as government actors.76 Whether Sossamon could establish a violation of the … Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 205-06 (1996) (“[T]he qualified immunity defense shield[s] [government agents] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Perry v. Durborow

892 F.3d 1116 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 12, 2018

See Riggins, 572 F.3d at 1107 (noting that to overcome qualified-immunity defense, “plaintiff must demonstrate . . . that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged unlawful activity” (emphasis added)). … Nevertheless, Durborow is entitled to qualified immunity unless Perry can also show that the law was clearly established at the time of the constitutional violation. Riggins, 572 F.3d at 1107. B.

Clark v. Stone

District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Jul 28, 2020

In the qualified immunity context, when determining whether a right is truly clearly established, a court must consider the “specific context of the case” and avoid construing rights too generally. Saucier v. … It is enough that such a right, even if it does exist in the Sixth Circuit, is not clearly established. Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.