Case law

Savage v. State

72 Wash. App. 483 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 8, 1994

We therefore hold that the State is entitled to qualified immunity to the extent the plaintiff relies on the actions of parole officers to establish the State’s liability for negligence under a respondeat superior theory. … Justice Andersen's dissent disputes this characterization of the law in Washington and argues that Guffey, Spurrell and Frost clearly establish that, where an employee has immunity, the State cannot be held liable on a respondeat

Thompson v. Douds

852 So. 2d 299 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 18, 2003

Therefore, the trial court found that Thompson had failed to prove that the law was "clearly established." … Therefore, the autopsy report was insufficient to establish a fact question that would defeat summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity. Id.

Jeffrey Mannoia v. David G. Farrow, Detective

476 F.3d 453 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 7, 2007

In Saucier, the Supreme Court established a two-part test for resolving the issue of qualified immunity. … “Consulting a prosecutor may not give an officer absolute immunity ... but it goes far to establish qualified immunity.” Kijonka v. Seitzinger, 363 F.3d 645, 648 (7th Cir.2004).

Burkes v. Klauser

185 Wis. 2d 308 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1994

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987). 5 The standard of objective legal reasonableness used in determining qualified immunity requires the court to focus on the degree to which clearly established case law gives guidance to … When a court decides a motion for summary judgment based on the defense of qualified immunity, it must determine from the complaint whether the plaintiff has alleged facts establishing a claim for a violation of a clearly

Akau v. Villareal

Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · Jan 14, 2026

immunity "cannot be sustained" because her actions violated a "clearly established" right under the Hawai#i Constitution. … In answer to the SAC, Villareal asserted that she "is not liable for Plaintiffs' alleged injuries and/or damages on the basis of qualified immunity and/or qualified privilege."

Arlane James v. New Jersey State Police

957 F.3d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 21, 2020

Qualified immunity protects government officials from being held liable for damages when their conduct does not violate a citizen’s clearly established rights. … Trooper Bartelt is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate Gibbons’s clearly established rights.

PAULOS VS. FCH1, LLC

2020 NV 2 · Nevada Supreme Court · Jan 30, 2020

Mahan concluded that Officer Baca was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Paulos v. … Noting the two-prong showing for overcoming qualified immunity—that (1) the officers violated a constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established—the Ninth Circuit used its

Barrett v. Robydek

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 29, 2024

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity, which “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … However, “[w]hen a qualified immunity defense is asserted at the pleading stage, we have historically found that the inquiry should be limited to the ‘clearly established’ prong of the analysis if feasible.”

Bronche Johnson v. California Department of Corrections

384 F. App'x 625 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 17, 2010

The district court properly entered summary judgment on Johnson’s claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) based on qualified immunity because the pertinent law was not clearly established … Callahan, 129 S.Ct. 808, 822 (2009) (holding that state officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law); see also Warsoldier v.

Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. San Perdido Ass'n

37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 691 · Supreme Court of Florida · Nov 15, 2012

There is an important difference between a departure from the essential requirements of law where there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law and a case that involves an issue of law where the law … Without such controlling precedent, we cannot conclude that either court violated a ‘clearly established principle of law.’ ” (quoting Stilson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 692 So.2d 979, 982-83 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997))).

Benford v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

554 F. Supp. 145 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 22, 1982

Therefore, officials who act beyond their scope of authority lack standing to assert a qualified immunity defense even in those instances where their behavior does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory … . *150 If the law the congressional defendants are charged with violating was clearly established, their qualified immunity argument must be rejected without further consideration.

Ingram v. Township of Deptford

858 F. Supp. 2d 386 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 13, 2012

deprivation violated clearly established law. … was clearly established.

Randall Kevin Jones v. Officer S. Fransen

857 F.3d 843 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 19, 2017

Nor does binding precedent allow for the conclusion that Defendant Officers’ employment of Draco in the circumstances of this case violated Jones’s clearly established rights, so the officers have qualified immunity. … In summary, we conclude that Defendant Officers Fransen, Towler, and Ross are entitled to qualified immunity because binding precedent does not clearly establish that their actions in allowing Draco to apprehend Jones violated

Paul Cleveland v. Sid Gautreaux, III

938 F.3d 672 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 13, 2019

The dispositive question in this step of the qualified-immunity analysis is “whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.” Ibid. (quoting al- Kidd, 563 U.S. at 742). … Ct. 2042, 2045 (2015) (per curiam) (summarily reversing the Third Circuit for relying on circuit precedent to deny qualified immunity, but “[a]ssuming for the sake of argument that a right can be ‘clearly established’ by

Carol Vincent v. City of Sulphur

805 F.3d 543 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 28, 2015

To defeat qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the official’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of a clearly established rule of law. See id. at 323. … In summary, as we have explained, the alleged constitutional right was not clearly established, so the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Ruben Sebastian v. Javier Ortiz

918 F.3d 1301 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 14, 2019

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 person would have … Now to the “clearly established” question. A plaintiff can show the violation of a clearly established right in a few ways. See Vinyard, 311 F.3d at 1350–52.

Mason v. Stock

955 F. Supp. 1293 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 30, 1997

Qualified Immunity Standards Qualified immunity protects public officials from individual liability in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action unless the officials violated “clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable … that an officer is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time a constitutional violation occurred.

Sabir v. Williams

52 F.4th 51 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 17, 2022

Qualified Immunity A. … the right is clearly established.

BLASH v. CITY OF HAWKINSVILLE AND PULASKI COUNTY GEORGIA SHERRIF'S OFFICE

District Court, M.D. Georgia · Dec 30, 2019

To establish the defense of qualified immunity, a defendant must first show that he acted within the scope of his discretionary authority in performing the challenged conduct, and if so, the plaintiff has the burden to … When a mixed motive theory of discrimination is advanced, qualified immunity can still apply because it is clearly established that “state officials ‘can be motivated, in part, by a dislike or hostility toward a certain

Caprita v. Dunaway

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 12, 2024

“To show that the official violated a ‘clearly established’ right, the plaintiff must ‘define with specificity the clearly established legal rule that the officers allegedly violated.’” Paul v. Whitley Cnty. Det. … In response to Defendant’s claim to qualified immunity, Plaintiff cites no case law that would tend to show Dunaway violated Plaintiff’s clearly established right to not be handcuffed like he was.