Case law

Rivers v. Fischer

390 F. App'x 22 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 13, 2010

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity for his actions unless his conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known. Pearson v. … The Second Circuit has held that a right is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes if “(1) the law is defined with reasonable clarity, (2) the Supreme Court or the Second Circuit has recognized the right, and

Lamas v. Hale County

District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 15, 2021

Where a defendant has asserted a qualified-immunity defense, the Court may, under certain circumstances, permit limited discovery that is narrowly tailored to uncover facts that the Court needs to rule on the qualified-immunity … See Backe, 691 F.3d at 648 (explaining that “this court has established a careful procedure under which a district court may defer its qualified immunity ruling if further factual development is necessary to ascertain

Auriemma v. Rice

910 F.2d 1449 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 20, 1990

established and thereby creating a qualified immunity defense. … But in any event it cannot be said that the law was clearly established in 1983. Rice is entitled to qualified immunity on count IV, thus requiring reversal on that count. V.

Eleanor Keller v. Attala County

952 F.3d 216 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 20, 2020

Without setting forth a clearly established right for which the analysis can continue, Plaintiffs have not defeated Deputy Fleming’s qualified immunity defense. … his actions violated clearly established law.

Brown v. Montoya

662 F.3d 1152 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 8, 2011

Clearly Established For Mr. Brown to overcome Officer Montoya’s qualified immunity, the procedural due process right must be “clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … Because the issue is whether Officer Montoya has qualified immunity, it is sufficient to determine whether the alleged conduct violates a clearly established substantive due process right.15 No clearly established Supreme

McDonald v. Doe

650 F. Supp. 858 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 31, 1986

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), an official who enjoys qualified immunity is immune from civil damages “insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … “If, on the other hand, the court concludes that the officials alleged conduct did violate clearly established law, it must deny summary judgment on the ground that the official is not entitled to qualified immunity, and

Jose Peroza-Benitez v. Darren Smith

994 F.3d 157 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 8, 2021

Haser and Officer White were entitled to qualified immunity because Peroza-Benitez’s constitutional rights at issue were not “clearly established” at the time of the incident. … At summary judgment, the burden is on the officer to establish an entitlement to qualified immunity. Halsey, 750 F.3d at 288.

Sanchez v. Sanchez

777 F. Supp. 906 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 8, 1991

If the plaintiff does establish such intent, there can be no qualified immunity. … As the reasoning in these cases demonstrates, where the right is clearly established, a defendant to a claim requiring proof of impermissible motive is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Jones v. Kirkland

696 So. 2d 1249 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 25, 1997

of the facts alleged, defendant's actions violate clearly established law — a `purely legal question.'" … Clearly, under the most favorable version of the facts alleged, appellees' actions objectively violated clearly established law. Accordingly, dismissal of appellant's complaint cannot be supported by qualified immunity.

Morris v. Noe

672 F.3d 1185 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 27, 2012

The second step in our qualified immunity inquiry is whether Morris’s right to be free from an unlawful arrest was clearly established. … Yet even if Noe violated a constitutional right, he is still entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established at the time.

Strickland v. Shotts

408 F. Supp. 2d 633 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 24, 2004

Immunity Defense In Plaintiffs Brief in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, counsel for the plaintiff raised the potential issue of Shotts’ ability to raise an *639 affirmative defense of qualified immunity … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (establishing the objective standard for qualified immunity) and Rakovich v.

Eason v. Thaler

14 F.3d 8 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 10, 1994

Walker v. Watson

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 6, 2022

Qualified Immunity The Defendants alternatively argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiff’s claims. … The Court, having found that the facts do not make out a constitutional violation finds that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to each of Plaintiff’s constitutional claims.

Hank Heckman and Loren Garcia v. Betsy Jividen, Jeff Sandy, and Patrick Morrisey

Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia · Apr 15, 2024

Despite Hargus’ influence upon Phalen’s outcome, qualified immunity does not require the public official to have a strong argument; all that is required to receive immunity is that the right was not “clearly established … Hargus’ logic was plainly influential in deciding Phalen, but qualified immunity’s standard is “clearly established,” not probable, or 20 likely to be established.

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.

Cope v. Cogdill

3 F.4th 198 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 2, 2021

There are two aspects to qualified immunity: whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right and whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. … Even if their actions were constitutionally unlawful, they are entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right at issue was not “clearly established.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. 1.

Humble

District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 14, 2026

in light of clearly established law. … at 502 (holding that defendants failed to establish qualified immunity).

Cecilia Perry v. Jermanda Adams

993 F.3d 584 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 5, 2021

Because Adams’s conduct did not violate the detainee’s clearly established rights, she is entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, we reverse. … Because Adams is a public official asserting a defense of qualified immunity, she is immune from suit under § 1983 unless her actions violated constitutional or statutory rights that were clearly established at the time of

Paylan v. Dirks

228 So. 3d 679 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 11, 2017

Stat. (2010), and the face of her complaint does not otherwise conclusively establish that the ASAs are entitled either to sovereign immunity or to qualified immunity. See Peak v. … of the qualified immunity defense; that is, whether, under the most favorable version of facts alleged, the defendant's action violated clearly established law."); Town of Southwest Ranches v.

Roger Trent v. Steven Wade

776 F.3d 368 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 29, 2015

The doctrine of qualified immunity “insulate[s]” state officials from liability to the extent that the officials’ actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” … As discussed, the qualified immunity analysis involves two inquiries: (1) whether the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) whether that the right was clearly established. Morgan v.