Case law

Randy McDaniel v. Markeith Neal

44 F.4th 1085 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 15, 2022

Even if his use of force was excessive, Neal is entitled to qualified immunity unless the excessiveness of the force was clearly established on the date of the incident, August 13, 2017. … The district court denied the officer’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, and the en banc court reversed, holding that the officer did not violate a clearly established right on May 29, 2014.

Garces Robles v. Ramirez

District Court, W.D. Texas · Jun 25, 2024

Plaintiffs sufficiently plead that the individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Hicks, 81 F.4th at 504 (holding that the right to timely release was clearly established as of 2017).5 “Ultimately, the touchstone is fair warning: The law can be clearly established despite notable factual distinctions

Melene James v. City of Boise

160 Idaho 466 · Idaho Supreme Court · Mar 23, 2016

The Court explained why the “clearly established law” could not be so general that it would eliminate the rale of qualified immunity. … With respect to qualified immunity, the court of appeals held that there was no clearly established law that the officer’s “use of a police dog to search and bite was unconstitutional.” Id. at 1092 .

Santiago v. Leik

179 Wis. 2d 786 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Oct 28, 1993

Thus, if at the time the challenged act occurred the law identifying the act as a constitutional violation was not clearly established, qualified immunity protects the official from suit. … The Barnhill court noted that confusion regarding qualified immunity "derives from the level of generality that should be afforded to 'clearly established law' at the time of the alleged unlawful act."

Estate of Clemente N. Aguirre v. County of Riverside

29 F.4th 624 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 24, 2022

The Clearly Established Inquiry Because the Najeras have presented facts sufficient to establish a Fourth Amendment violation, we consider the second prong of qualified immunity: whether the law was clearly established … The posture of this interlocutory appeal coupled with clearly established law supports the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. IV.

District of Columbia v. Evans

644 A.2d 1008 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 21, 1994

1988 liability, an officer’s acts must clearly violate a clearly established right. … Deliberately shooting someone without just cause clearly violates the Fourth Amendment, and thus would preclude qualified immunity from § 1983 liability.

Carey v. City of Fall River

708 F. Supp. 431 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 15, 1988

Thus, the court concludes that no constitutional counterpart of malicious prosecution or abuse of process was clearly established in 1983 and, therefore, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this … The Supreme Court has found that provisions in police regulations will not serve to clearly establish federal law for qualified immunity purposes. See Davis v.

O'Connor v. Donovan

191 Vt. 412 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Apr 13, 2012

All were performed in good faith, i.e., they did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, and all were discretionary. Id. at 189-92 , 559 A.2d at 1081-83 . … The fate of an official with qualified immunity depends upon the circumstances and motivations of his actions, as established by the evidence at trial.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 , 419 n.13 (1976).

Haynes v. City of Beaumont

35 S.W.3d 166 · Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) · Dec 8, 2000

Government officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity from liability for actions that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … In practice, whether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action assessed in light of clearly established legal rules at the time the

Jacob Pfaller v. Mark Amonette

55 F.4th 436 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 15, 2022

immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established. … was clearly established.

Jose Elizondo v. City of Garland Police Dep

671 F.3d 506 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 14, 2012

West, 662 F.3d 320, 325 (5th Cir.2011), but the same does not hold for an order granting qualified immunity. An order granting immunity can be fully and fairly reviewed after a final judgment. See Thompson v. … To establish the use of excessive force in violation of the Constitution, a plaintiff must prove: “(1) injury, (2) which resulted directly and only from a use of force that was clearly excessive, and (3) the excessiveness

Grohs v. Yatauro

984 F. Supp. 2d 273 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 20, 2013

The qualified immunity analysis Qualified immunity protects government officials such as Defendants Yatauro and Lanigan from liability for damages as long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or … Whether the Complaint alleges a constitutional violation that is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity Grohs’ claim that inadequate hot water at the STU impaired the safety and well-being of its residents

Woods v. Harris County

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 19, 2024

We first address whether the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the Deputy on the basis of qualified immunity. … Hudson, 933 F.3d 481, 486 (5th Cir. 2019) (“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.”

Callahan v. Lancaster-Lebanon Intermediate Unit 13

880 F. Supp. 319 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 1994

immunity because no clearly established rights existed); Doe v. … established, and is not entitled to qualified immunity).

Ellison Ex Rel. Estate of Ellison v. Lesher

796 F.3d 910 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 6, 2015

In an interlocutory appeal from an order denying qualified immunity, we have authority to decide the purely legal issue whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff support a claim of violation of clearly established law. … Qualified immunity shields police officers from suit in a § 1983 action unless their conduct violated a clearly established right of which a reasonable official would have known. Harlow v.

Ronnie Gibson, Sr. v. Nicholas Abate

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 11, 2025

He claims that we should be wary of dismissing a case under Civil Rule 12(b)(6) based on the clearly established prong of qualified immunity. … There, we answered both questions raised by the officers’ qualified-immunity defense: Did the officers violate the Constitution? And did the caselaw clearly establish the violation when it occurred?

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

Bartlett v. Cinemark USA, Inc.

908 S.W.2d 229 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Aug 11, 1995

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields an official performing discretionary functions from liability for damages under section 1983 so long as the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … Sullivan, 4 F.3d 2, 12 (1st Cir.1993) (recognizing that Supreme Court has not clearly explained role of “discretionary functions” in qualified immunity analysis).

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.

Tate v. Alexander

527 F. Supp. 796 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Nov 30, 1981

Some controversy has developed over the years concerning exactly how one can tell that a particular constitutional right has become “clearly established” for purposes of applying qualified immunity for official actions, and … was therefore not clearly established.