Case law

Taylor v. LeBlanc

68 F.4th 223 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 15, 2023

LeBlanc appeals the denial of qualified immunity arguing, inter alia, that his conduct wasn’t objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … Lambert, 921 F.3d 215, 219 (5th Cir. 2019) (qualified immunity turns on whether defendant’s conduct is “objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law”); Hinojosa v.

Thomas v. McGinnis

239 Mich. App. 636 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 2000

trial court granted the motion, finding that he was entitled to qualified immunity. … In an action brought under 42 USC 1983, a government official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified or good-faith immunity “ ‘insofar as [the official’s] conduct does not violate clearly established

Sundquist v. Nebraska

122 F. Supp. 3d 876 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Aug 10, 2015

Schuldt and Vierk contend that, in 2013, it was not clearly established that this violated Sundquist’s rights, and therefore, they argue, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Westmoreland v. State

73 Wash. App. 286 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 31, 1994

In deciding whether qualified immunity applies to discretionary functions, courts apply a 2-part objective test: (1) was the relevant law "clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation? … is clearly established that the particular act by the public official constitutes a violation of the right involved, rather than whether the right itself is clearly established”), cert. granted, vacated and appeal dismissed

Meyers v. Baltimore County

981 F. Supp. 2d 422 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 1, 2013

Further, defendants maintained that, “ ‘[i]f the court finds that Officer Mee violated the Fourth Amendment then he is still entitled to qualified immunity because such an interpretation of the law was not clearly established … “Qualified immunity extends to protect officials ‘who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.’ ” Williams v.

Abbas Khoshdel .M.D., Llyod Aschberger, Terri Pursley, and Jamie Williams v. Charles Goosby

Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco) · Nov 1, 2012

Government officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity from a suit for damages under section 1983 so long as the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … the clearly established right.

Christopher Majors v. City of West Des Moines

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 25, 2026

McCrystal, 708 F.3d 997, 1007–08 (8th Cir. 2013) (denying officer qualified immunity after plaintiff established a Franks violation), abrogation on other grounds recognized by Laney v. City of St. … establish probable cause if the allegedly false information were ignored.

Lucas v. The City of Reynoldsburg

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 2, 2025

because they violated no clearly established right. … Thus, an official sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time of the

Corum v. University of North Carolina

330 N.C. 761 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 31, 1992

After filing an answer containing defenses, which included sovereign immunity and qualified immunity, defendants moved for summary judgment. … This is because “[i]f the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.”

Harris v. City of Balch Springs

9 F. Supp. 3d 690 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 28, 2014

Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue. … If “the pleadings on their face show an unreasonable violation of a clearly established constitutional right,” assertion of a qualified immunity defense is insufficient to sustain a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

Decotiis v. Whittemore

635 F.3d 22 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 24, 2011

Qualified Immunity The district court held that Defendant Whittemore, in her individual capacity, is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not so clearly established as to put Whittemore on fair … A plaintiff may overcome qualified immunity by first making out the violation of a constitutional right, and second, establishing that the "right was 'clearly established' at the time of the defendant's alleged violation

Colao v. Mills

39 A.D.3d 1048 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 19, 2007

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity, thereby shielding them from civil liability, as long as their actions did not violate the plaintiffs clearly established legal rights … qualified immunity test and determine whether reasonable officers would know that the conduct here was unlawful at the time (see Cowan ex rel.

People v. Mazur

497 Mich. 302 · Michigan Supreme Court · Jun 11, 2015

Section 4 of the MMMA concerns immunity. A qualifying patient who receives a registry identification card is entitled to immunity, provided that certain conditions are met. MCL 333.26424(a). … The trial court’s contrary finding that “there is no evidence that she provided [marihuana paraphernalia] to a registered qualifying patient or registered caregiver” is clearly erroneous because elsewhere in its opinion the

Drennon v. Blades

District Court, D. Idaho · Dec 26, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects state officials from personal liability for on-the-job conduct so long as the conduct is objectively reasonable and does not violate an inmate’s clearly-established federal … ”; and (2) whether that right was clearly established.

Shlomo Leibovitch v. Islamic Republic of

697 F.3d 561 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 25, 2012

Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611, 620 (1983) (“The language and history of the FSIA clearly establish that the Act was not intended to affect the substantive law determining the liability of a foreign … The same is true here; Congress has established a private right of action principally for Ameri- can claimants while waiving sovereign immunity in a broader set of cases also involving American victims.

Stephen G. Loftus v. Ester Clark-Moore

690 F.3d 1200 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 13, 2012

The district court ruled that Clark-Moore and Ferguson were entitled to qualified immunity because neither social worker had violated a clearly established federal right of Loftus or his children. … Ferguson is entitled to qualified immunity because the threats that she allegedly made did not violate any clearly established federal right.

Sterling Hotels, LLC v. Scott McKay

71 F.4th 463 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 22, 2023

To overcome McKay’s assertion of qualified immunity at this stage, Sterling need only plausibly allege that McKay violated its clearly established constitutional rights. … McKay’s potential individual liability for a regulatory takings claim was not clearly established when he sealed the elevators. That means McKay is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Bryant v. Pulaski County Detention Center

330 S.W.3d 461 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Feb 25, 2011

The trial court granted summary judgment based on sovereign immunity to the Detention Center, and to Brian Bishop based on qualified official immunity. … Those facts clearly establish that Bishop was not acting in good faith, either objectively or subjectively.

Hanes v. Zurick

578 F.3d 491 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 18, 2009

that right was clearly established. … ” the court indicated that the right was clearly established.

Marks v. Smith

241 F. Supp. 3d 726 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Mar 10, 2017

In their motion for summary judgment, these defendants argue Plaintiffs claims against them in their individual capacities should be dismissed, because they are protected by qualified immunity. 27 “Qualified immunity protects … public officials from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” 28 As explained by the United States Supreme Court, “qualified immuni *732 ty seeks to ensure that defendants reasonably