Case law

Halterman

District Court, W.D. Missouri · Feb 18, 2026

immunity analysis, while the latter, “arguable probable cause,” goes to the “clearly established prong” of the qualified immunity analysis. … to qualified immunity.”

Williams v. Deputy Warden McKay

District Court, D. Idaho · Mar 31, 2022

Because determining clearly- established law is also the foundation for a qualified immunity defense, the Court includes qualified immunity considerations in its analysis. 3 Unless the parties can show otherwise … Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 12 (2015): The dispositive question [for qualified immunity] is “whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.” Ibid.

Woodyard v. Alabama Department of Corrections

700 F. App'x 927 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 30, 2017

rights and (2) that those rights were “clearly established” at the time of the violation. … Because Woodyard must establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Leggett violated his constitutional rights before he can possibly overcome the officer’s qualified immunity defense, we address the district

James Tomer v. Daryl Gates, Jerry Bova, Luis Lopez, Raymond Lombardo, Michael Ranshaw, and the City of Los Angeles

811 F.2d 1240 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 27, 1987

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526-27 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815-16 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985), established the rule that denial of a qualified immunity defense, like the denial of absolute immunity, is immediately appealable as a final … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Charles Davis v. James Yates

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 13, 2019

Youseff, 914 F.3d 1218, 1229 (9th Cir. 2019), concluded that a prisoner’s “right to be free from heightened exposure to Valley Fever spores” was not clearly established. … Read, 663 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 2011) (jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity limited to “the purely legal issue whether the facts alleged . . . support a claim of clearly established

Scott v. Godwin

147 S.W.3d 609 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Aug 31, 2004

Government officials performing *616 discretionary functions have qualified immunity from liability for actions that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … In conducting a qualified immunity analysis, the reviewing court first determines whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. See Siegert 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.

Marson v. Thomason

438 S.W.3d 292 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Apr 17, 2014

His general duty to look out for the safety of the students is clearly discretionary in nature, and he is just as clearly entitled to qualified immunity. … Consequently, he does not have qualified immunity, and can be sued individually.

Liu v. New York City Police Department

216 A.D.2d 67 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 13, 1995

However, we find that the individual defendants should be granted qualified immunity from plaintiffs civil rights claims. … A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Clue v. Johnson

179 F.3d 57 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 10, 1999

“The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability if the official’s conduct did not violate constitutional rights that were clearly established at the pertinent time or if it was objectively … Instead, they contend that their activities raise a public concern under clearly established law and that Johnson is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. See infra.

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

ANTONIO LACY v. JOHN COUGHLIN & another.

100 Mass. App. Ct. 321 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 6, 2021

"Thus, if a court decides to grant qualified immunity because there is no violation of clearly established law, it may never answer whether there was a constitutional violation." … While I agree with Justice Massing that the right was clearly established here, the current case is yet another example of the collateral damage done by a qualified immunity doctrine which aggressively terminates cases at

Creamer v. Sceviour

652 A.2d 110 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 12, 1995

Qualified Immunity A plaintiff may maintain a section 1983 5 claim against governmental employees only if they are not entitled to qualified immunity. … 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 the defendants would have known that their

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.

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."

Lipsky v. Cronin

District Court, D. South Dakota · Mar 31, 2025

immunity’s second prong, the clearly established prong.” … Thus, even if any deprivation did occur, it was not clearly established, and Captain Wainman is entitled to qualified immunity.

Fowler v. Block

2 F. Supp. 2d 1268 · District Court, C.D. California · May 15, 1998

(2) Was such right clearly established at the time of the alleged offense? (3) If there is a clearly established right, is the issue of qualified immunity [ ] properly addressed in a motion for summary judgment? … Under the two-part test, there'is qualified immunity if: (1) the law governing the official’s conduct was “clearly established;” and (2) under that “clearly established” law, a reasonable officer could have believed that

Kelly v. BOROUGH OF CARLISLE

815 F. Supp. 2d 810 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 7, 2011

was contrary to clearly established law. … Accordingly, the Second Circuit held that even where a defendant violates a clearly established right, he may still be entitled to qualified immunity in limited circumstances. Id.; see also Friedman v.

Taylor

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jun 8, 2026

that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … What remains, then, is the second prong: whether the relevant rights were clearly established.

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.