Case 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

Green v. Thomas

129 F.4th 877 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 3, 2025

In finding clearly established law, the district court overlooked Espinal v. … particular case at hand” and granting qualified immunity because “the unlawfulness of the officers’ conduct in this case was not clearly established”). 35 See Bailey v.

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.

Reynaldo Ramirez v. Jim Wells County, Texas

716 F.3d 369 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 15, 2013

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Because there was no false arrest, no constitutional violation occurred, and, accordingly, we have no occasion to reach the part of the qualified immunity analysis that asks whether the law was clearly established.

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

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.

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.

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.

Tina Ray v. Michael Roane

948 F.3d 222 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 22, 2020

violation occurred and (2) whether the right violated was clearly established. … Still, even without “directly on-point, binding authority,” qualified immunity is inappropriate if “the 11 right was clearly established based on general constitutional principles

John Melnik v. James Dzurenda

14 F.4th 981 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 27, 2021

Dissenting, Judge Bennett would hold that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law. … Clearly Established Right Defendants in this case focus their challenge to the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on the second prong of the analysis, the “clearly established” element, and on only part of

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.

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.

Eason v. Thaler

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

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.

Gormley v. Wood-El

422 N.J. Super. 426 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 18, 2011

In that regard, we conclude, because the right asserted was not clearly established at the time plaintiff was attacked, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. I. … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless his or her conduct violated “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Ibid.

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.

Lucas v. State

141 S.W.3d 121 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Feb 4, 2004

Qualified immunity is asserted as a defense, and shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The procedure for evaluating claims of qualified immunity is tripartite: First, we determine whether a constitutional violation has occurred; second, we determine whether the right that was violated was a clearly established

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.

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.”).