Case law

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.

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

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.”).

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.

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.

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

Spruytte v. Owens

190 Mich. App. 127 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 1991

Regarding the immunity question, it is clear that Rule 791.6637(4) was a clearly established state regulation, violation of which is sufficient to cause officials to forfeit their qualified immunity. … Because the officials violated that rule and the rule was clearly established at the time of the violation, the officials are not entitled to immunity.

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.

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))).

James P. Crocker v. Deputy Sheriff Steven Eric Beatty

886 F.3d 1132 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 2, 2018

Rights may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes by one of three methods: (1) “case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional right,” (2) “a broad statement of principle within … We further determine that these rights were clearly established at the time of the seizure such that Beatty is not entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

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

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.

Henderson v. Glanz

813 F.3d 938 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 28, 2015

The defendants do not challenge the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity standard, other than in a single sentence stating that “Plaintiff failed to show that the Sheriff violated a clearly … Henderson has not carried her burden of establishing he violated a constitutional right that was clearly established, we conclude the district court erred in holding he is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Alley v. Bettencourt

134 Ohio App. 3d 303 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 1999

The officers filed for summary judgment, arguing that the doctrine of qualified immunity barred Alley’s federal claims, because Alley could not prove that they violated any clearly established statutory or constitutional … Alley responded to the officers’ motion for summary judgment, arguing that qualified immunity did not bar his federal claims, because the officers violated his clearly established constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment

Bishop v. Boyer

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 26, 2025

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages in situations in which their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … As the Seventh Circuit has explained: [A] right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes if its contours were sufficiently definite that

Randall Kevin Jones v. Officer S. Fransen

857 F.3d 843 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 19, 2017

Nor does binding precedent allow for the conclusion that Defendant Officers’ employment of Draco in the circumstances of this case violated Jones’s clearly established rights, so the officers have qualified immunity. … In summary, we conclude that Defendant Officers Fransen, Towler, and Ross are entitled to qualified immunity because binding precedent does not clearly establish that their actions in allowing Draco to apprehend Jones violated

David Andrews v. Robert Scuilli

853 F.3d 690 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 10, 2017

If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity. … This leaves us with the question of whether the rights at issue were clearly established at the time.18 We need not dwell on this.

United States v. Lopez

147 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 16, 1998

Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979), the Court established the requirements for attacking the composition of a jury: In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show … It clearly did not deprive him of a fair trial. Defense counsel was able to cope effectively with the shortened period of preparation.