Case law

McGarry v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners for the Cnty. of Lincoln

294 F. Supp. 3d 1170 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Feb 28, 2018

The Court concludes that: (i) Wood used excessive force, but he is entitled to qualified immunity, because the right was not clearly established; (ii) the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the malicious prosecution … Although the Tenth Circuit has recognized a sliding scale for qualified immunity's clearly established inquiry, see Casey v.

Joshua, Jimmie v. Wachholz, Isaac

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Apr 21, 2023

All defendants now seek summary judgment on the merits of these claims, or alternatively, on their entitlement to qualified immunity. (Dkt. #25.) … Biggs, 43 F.4th 732, 736 (7th Cir. 2022) (dismissing interlocutory appeal of denial of qualified immunity because factual disputes precluded district court from determining whether defendant violated clearly established

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.

Purvis v. Oest

614 F.3d 713 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 2, 2010

In a qualified-immunity setting, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the constitutional right alleg- edly violated was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. See Landstrom v. Ill. … Oest is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Despite being aware of the potential conflict of interest, Lunn and Vicini are also entitled to qualified immunity.

Crystal Starnes v. Butler County Court of Common

971 F.3d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 24, 2020

s] of Appeals could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity.” … The District Court defined the violative conduct too broadly for qualified immunity purposes. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 742 (warning courts not to define clearly established law at “a high level of generality”).

GARCIA v. Northside Independent School District

District Court, W.D. Texas · Jun 23, 2025

Unreasonable Seizure2 1 The Court’s analysis of the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis is not limited to the cas- es cited by Plaintiff. See Elder v. … Marcantel, 567 F.3d (5th Cir. 2009) as clearly establishing that an officer should receive no qualified immunity if he “quickly escalate[s]” an encounter with a non-threatening, passively-resisting driver who posed little

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.”

JONES v. United States

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 26, 2024

Step One of the Qualified Immunity Doctrine and Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs The two-prong test for qualified immunity considers whether the facts … Qualified immunity protects a government official from civil liability and suit “insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Florida Highway Patrol, a division etc. v. Lashonta Renea Jackson, as Per. Rep. etc.

238 So. 3d 430 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 23, 2018

Reeves, 80 F.3d 1101, 1104 (6th Cir. 1996) (“Hunter established that the determination of whether qualified immunity applies to an officer’s judgment as to probable cause is one for the court, not the jury, to make”); Ansley … This appears to be the analysis undertaken by Judge Rothenberg in Pozos when she concluded that the record “clearly established” the legal question of sovereign immunity. Pozos, 42 Fla. L.

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

Trellus Richmond v. Mario J. Badia

47 F.4th 1172 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 22, 2022

Richmond further argues that Badia’s actions violated his clearly established rights, such that Badia’s qualified immunity defense fails. … “A right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes in one of three ways: (1) [Eleventh Circuit or Supreme Court] case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the constitu- tional right; (2)

Tygrett v. City and County of Denver a/k/a Denver Water

District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 26, 2020

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects from litigation a public official whose possible violation of a plaintiff’s civil rights was not clearly … that any constitutional violation was grounded in then- extant clearly established law.”

Ward v. Brown

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 3, 2022

As to the second part of the qualified immunity analysis, the right Brown is accused of violating was clearly established long before the September 2017 fight that gave rise to this case. … violated a clearly established right.”).

Sause v. Bauer

859 F.3d 1270 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 20, 2017

First, she argues that the defendants aren’t entitled to qualified immunity because they violated her clearly established rights under the First Amendment. … Second, she argues that even assuming the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the contours of that right aren’t clearly established, the doctrine of qualified immunity doesn’t shield them from her claims

McQueen v. Williams

587 So. 2d 918 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1991

The state law and the affidavits submitted by [McQueen] clearly establish that the Sheriff's actions, as done in the totality of circumstances, were totally discretionary. … a claim of violation of clearly established law."

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.”

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

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