Case law

Anderson v. City of Hopkins

400 N.W.2d 350 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Feb 10, 1987

This appeal is from an order denying summary judgment and rejecting appellants’ qualified immunity defense. … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

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

Ohio Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. Moritz

39 Ohio App. 3d 132 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 1987

Appellants assert the following as their sole assignment of error: “The trial court erred in denying defendants-appellants’ good faith immunity defense where defendants-appellants violated no clearly established constitutional … Harlow holds that until the threshold question of immunity is resolved, whether the law or right which the official is alleged to have violated was clearly established at the time of the appeal violation and whether a reasonable

Mierzwa v. City of Garfield

170 F. App'x 212 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 19, 2005

Finally, the Court found that because the State is immune from liability under § 1983, the Mierzwas’ due process claim lacks merit. … In addition, the individual Garfield defendants (police and prosecutor) enjoy qualified immunity as their conduct in investigating the incident between Edward and Thomas did not violate clearly established constitutional

Harris County v. Nagel

349 S.W.3d 769 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Oct 5, 2011

Identification of the clearly established law is not a question of fact to be established by evidence. … This would not be qualified immunity, but absolute immunity.

Mangino v. Incorporated Village of Patchogue

814 F. Supp. 2d 242 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 2011

Having carefully considered the motion for reconsideration, the Court concludes that Nudo is entitled to qualified immunity on the abuse of process claim because, although there was a clearly established right to be free … Therefore, qualified immunity at this juncture is clearly unwarranted.

Roxanne Adams v. Debra Ferguson

884 F.3d 219 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 6, 2018

Qualified immunity “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Mullenix v. … “Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

SERVAIS v. CACCIA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 2023

Second, the Court considers “whether that right was clearly established at the time of the official’s actions.” Id. “An answer in the negative to either prong entitles an officer to qualified immunity.” … See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 (stating that qualified immunity applies unless “the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct” (emphasis added)).

Hurdsman v. Commander Pokluda

District Court, W.D. Texas · Jan 13, 2020

Qualified Immunity “A qualified immunity defense alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof.” Brown v. Callahan, 623 F.3d 249, 253 (5th Cir. 2010). … Guendry, 703 F.3d 757, 763-64 (5th Cir. 2012) (qualified immunity will not protect officers who apply excessive force merely because their means of apply it are novel; further, Graham excessive force factors “can ‘clearly

Adam Saetrum v. Jake Vogt

673 F. App'x 688 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 20, 2016

Cases from this and other circuits clearly established that using a car as an impact weapon constituted at least a significant, intermediate level of force. See Young v. … The Takedown Claim With respect to the takedown claim, by contrast, Vogt’s actions did not violate clearly established law.

TC Reiner v. Canale

301 F. Supp. 3d 727 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 15, 2018

Beyond failing to cite any authority suggesting-let alone clearly establishing-that Defendant's use of the Work was not fair use, Plaintiff has all but conceded that his rights were not clearly established for qualified-immunity … As Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that *744 any infringement of any right of his was clearly established, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff's DMCA claim as well. 2.

Lee v. Greene

114 N.C. App. 580 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 3, 1994

The test of qualified immunity for police officers sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is whether in performing discretionary functions, they have engaged in conduct that violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … The threshold question regarding a defense of qualified immunity is whether defendants have violated a “clearly established” right. Pritchett, 973 F.2d at 313 .

Garcia v. Royal Bank of Canada

178 F. Supp. 2d 74 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Dec 17, 2001

Qualified Immunity Noriega contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … If no violation of a clearly established constitutional right is found, then the analysis halts because “there is qualified immunity.” Aponte Matos v.

Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company v. United States of America, International Trademark Association, Amicus Curiae

86 F.3d 789 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 10, 1996

We start our analysis with the well-established proposition that the United States may not be sued without its consent. See Affiliated Ute Citizens v. … that the agency action had transgressed and establish that the statute or regulation applies to the United States.

Daniel Chavez v. David Robinson

817 F.3d 1162 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 29, 2016

In this case, the panel determined that plaintiff’s complaint did not clearly show that he would be unable to overcome qualified immunity. … ROBINSON Chavez’s pro se complaint did not clearly show that he would be unable to overcome qualified immunity.

Outlaw v. Nasworthy

250 Ga. App. 362 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jul 3, 2001

by reference to clearly established law. … On a motion for summary judgment, if the applicable law was clearly established at the time the defendant acted, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law

Bartell v. Lohiser

215 F.3d 550 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 7, 2000

No defendants may assert qualified immunity. … However, this Circuit, as well as a number of “clearly established” constitutional or statutory right has been our sister Circuits, have granted state employees qualified immunity violated; and second, we ascertain whether

Hicks v. LeBlanc

81 F.4th 497 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 5, 2023

Appellants insist they are entitled to qualified immunity because they neither violated Hicks’ constitutional rights nor acted unreasonably in light of clearly established law. We disagree. … Having established that Hicks’ right to timely release was clearly established, we turn to the first question of qualified immunity: whether _____________________ 21 U.S.

Torres v. Goddard

194 F. Supp. 3d 886 · District Court, D. Arizona · Jul 1, 2016

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … As a matter of law, clearly established law for qualified immunity purposes is the law clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.

Tracy Ray Vaughan v. James D. Ricketts

859 F.2d 736 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 14, 1988

Ricketts moved for summary judgment, claiming a qualified immunity from suit because the law governing body cavity searches of inmates was not clearly established as of March 1984. … Finally, the district court found that clearly established standards existed under the eighth and fourteenth amendments as well. The court thus refused to grant Ricketts qualified immunity on any of Vaughan’s claims.