Case law

Herndon v. Henderson Police Department

District Court, D. Nevada · Sep 23, 2023

Defendants are nonetheless entitled to 8 qualified immunity because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the right was clearly 9 established. … to be clearly established.

Robinson v. Langdon

333 Ark. 662 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 25, 1998

Fitzgerald, the [government official] will be entitled to immunity so long as his actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Shuffield had “fair warning” that he was violating a clearly established right in determining that the allegation of abuse was “founded.”

Tammi Taylor v. Pam Palmer

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 7, 2023

Taylor to overcome the mayor’s qualified immunity by showing (1) that the mayor violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct … What matters here is not how this issue would be resolved on the merits but only that the law was not clearly established—so the mayor has qualified immunity.

Robert Tolan v. Jeffrey Cotton

713 F.3d 299 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 26, 2013

“The second prong of the qualified immunity test is [] understood as two separate inquiries: whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident; and, if so, … clearly- established law.

McCall v. Williams

52 F. Supp. 2d 611 · District Court, D. South Carolina · May 19, 1999

Although the right to due process of law, for example, is quite clearly established, the qualified immunity analysis law is not “to be applied at this level of generality.” Anderson v. … The court notes that the Kopf case, upon which the Vathekan court relied for its clearly established law, did not involve an assertion of the qualified immunity defense.

Allen v. Guerrero

276 Wis. 2d 679 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Sep 16, 2004

given right was clearly established." … clearly established.

Yount v. Millington

117 N.M. 95 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 1993

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Government officials are entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, provided that their actions are objectively reasonable in the light of clearly established law. Harlow v. … We first note that the allegedly violated law that must be clearly established in the context of a qualified-immunity analysis is federal law, not state law. Estate of Himelstein v.

Erika Mabes v. Shannon Thompson

136 F.4th 697 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 28, 2025

Both sets of defendants invoked qual- ified immunity, contending that their actions did not violate the Mabeses’ clearly established rights. … Thompson’s en- titlement to qualified immunity naturally follows from the Mabeses’ failure to carry their “burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right.” Forman v.

The Estate of Marquette F. Cummings Jr. v. Warden Carter Davenport

906 F.3d 934 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 2, 2018

And he maintained that no authority clearly established that Davenport’s actions were unconstitutional. … On the contrary, the Court has explained that “[t]he conception animating the qualified immunity doctrine . . . is that ‘where an official’s duties legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not

Michael E. v. State

286 Neb. 532 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Sep 6, 2013

Whether a state official should pre- vail in a qualified immunity defense depends upon the objective reasonableness of his or her conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law. 26. … Qualified immunity shields state officials in their individual capacities from civil damages if their conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have

Salazar v. Molina

37 F.4th 278 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 16, 2022

Qualified immunity allows law enforcement officers to avoid personal liability and the burdens of defending suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right. … “Because nonprecedential opinions do not establish any binding law for the circuit, they cannot be the source of clearly established law for qualified immunity analysis.” Marks v.

JARVIS BY AND THROUGH JARVIS v. Deyoe

18 Brief Times Rptr. 1399 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 1994

protected by qualified immunity. … However, in evaluating a claim of qualified immunity, “determining whether a right is clearly established requires a specific inquiry, not a general inquiry based on abstract rights.” Moody v.

STERLING HOTELS, LLC v. MCKAY

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jun 11, 2025

The Sixth Circuit panel went on to hold that Plaintiff overcame Defendant’s qualified immunity defense, because it is clearly established that an individual must have a hearing before being deprived of a significant … Violation of Clearly Established Constitutional Rights Defendant asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Leslie Atkinson v. Brent Godfrey

100 F.4th 498 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 2, 2024

Under that prong, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity if, at the time of the challenged conduct, the law did not clearly establish that the officer’s conduct was unconstitutional. … Instead, under prong two of the qualified immunity analysis, we held that the constitutional rights Atkinson claimed Godfrey violated were not clearly established at the time of Godfrey’s conduct.

Ryan v. City of Augusta

622 A.2d 74 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 1, 1993

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, government officials performing discretion *76 ary functions are immune from suit in actions brought pursuant to § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Because their actions violated Ryan’s clearly established rights, Logan and Todd are not entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Tucker v. City of Shreveport

998 F.3d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 18, 2021

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from suit and liability for damages under § 1983 unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right. Mace v. … This is true “even when . . . a court decides only the clearly-established prong of the [qualified immunity] standard.” Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 657 (2014).

Robert Jack Hayter v. City of Mount Vernon, Harold Sullivan, Jr., Franklin County Reserve Deputy, Tyler Bannister, Mount Vernon Police Officer

154 F.3d 269 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 21, 1998

infringed was “clearly established];.]” 516 U.S. at 312-313 , 116 S.Ct. 834 (citations omitted). … Next, even if a public official’s conduct has violated a clearly established constitutional right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his or her conduct was objectively reasonable. Id.

Barna v. Board of School Directors of the Panther Valley School District

877 F.3d 136 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 7, 2017

“clearly established.” … The court further concluded that the defendants who issued the notices were not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established that such an absolute prohibition of challenges the ban based on its absolute

Kevin Laury v. Matthew Rodriguez

659 F. App'x 837 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 25, 2016

Actions on the Ground Price’s actions following the initial takedown are similarly not entitled to qualified immunity. … show that there was a constitutional violation and that the right at issue was clearly established.

Forsyth v. Kleindienst

551 F. Supp. 1247 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 1982

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … Under the Harlow standard, a government official is immune from suit if the law was not clearly established at the time of the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct.