Case law

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

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).

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.

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.

Umar v. Scott

991 S.W.2d 512 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 10, 1999

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields individual government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages, so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Furthermore, we hold that Appellees’ actions in complying with the policy were objectively reasonable, and Appellees’ have established, as a matter of law, their entitlement to qualified immunity.

Ali v. Lambert

384 F. Supp. 3d 1321 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Apr 25, 2019

Thus, "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts that show-when taken as true-the defendant plausibly violated his constitutional rights, which were clearly established … the relevant law is clearly established."

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.

Sheppard v. Beerman

911 F. Supp. 606 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 20, 1995

In the Second Circuit, law is normally “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes when there is a United States Supreme Court or circuit court ruling on point. See Richardson v. … ’s dismissal established the violation of a “clearly established” right.

McCall v. The County of Lowndes

District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jan 9, 2023

Alternatively, the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs have failed to show, through binding caselaw or legal principles of obvious application, that it was clearly established at … See Griffin Indus., 496 F.3d at 1199 (“Only when the official violated the law and the illegality of his conduct was clearly established must the court deny him the protection of qualified immunity.”).

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).

West Virginia Division of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. Damein Robbins

West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 9, 2023

Those errors relate to one portion of the qualified immunity test (violation of a clearly established right), so we briefly survey pertinent immunities law before addressing the Officers’ specific arguments. … well-established qualified immunity framework.”

Shirk v. Forsmark

272 P.3d 1118 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jan 5, 2012

Qualified immunity is immunity from suit, not a mere defense to liability. Id. … To overcome a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must plead a constitutional violation, and the constitutional right allegedly violated must have been "clearly established" at the time of the action in question.

Estate of Jaime Ceballos v. Husk

919 F.3d 1204 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 26, 2019

to qualified immunity. *1213 Medina v. … Here, the district court denied Officer Husk qualified immunity, ruling that Ceballos had stated a clearly established Fourth Amendment violation and that there were genuinely disputed issues of material fact that precluded

Rufus West v. Gregory Grams

607 F. App'x 561 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 22, 2015

immunity. … It has never been clearly established that inmates have a right to inmate-led group worship under the First Amendment.

Lowther v. Children Youth and Families Department

District Court, D. New Mexico · Feb 23, 2023

violate a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right. … In its discretion, the Court addresses the second prong, or “clearly established prong,” of the qualified immunity analysis first.

Point Properties, Inc. v. Anderson

584 So. 2d 1332 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 14, 1991

Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 800 , 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), established the following test for determining whether a public official can claim qualified immunity: '[G]overnment officials . . . generally … . * If the law that the defendants allegedly violated was not clearly established, then the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See Daniel 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))).

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.

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

Pagan-Gonzalez v. Moreno

919 F.3d 582 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 22, 2019

"[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was 'clearly established at the time.' " Dist. of … Qualified Immunity Having concluded that the search as alleged violated the Constitution, we turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry: whether the unlawfulness of the agents' conduct was clearly established