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.

McMullen v. Starkville Oktibbeha Consolidated School District

200 F. Supp. 3d 649 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jul 29, 2016

To raise qualified immunity, “[a]n officer need only plead his good faith, which then shifts the burden to the plaintiff, who must rebut the defense by establishing that the officer’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly … A civil rights “plaintiff can overcome a qualified immunity defense by showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged

Thomas Cannon v. Village of Bald Head Island

891 F.3d 489 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 30, 2018

“Because the first two prongs of the test are questions of law, an employer is entitled to qualified immunity if either prong cannot be resolved under clearly established law.” Crouse, 848 F.3d at 583. … In sum, under our qualified immunity analysis, at the time of the disclosures this Court’s precedent clearly established that the allegedly stigmatizing statements were made public by Peck.

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

Nilesh S. Patel v. James Smith

969 F.3d 1173 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 11, 2020

qualified immunity. … immunity—that is, whether the right that Patel alleges was clearly established.

John Wayne Charleston v. Clint Allen, Criminal District Attorney of Cass County

420 S.W.3d 134 · Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) · Oct 15, 2012

—Tyler 1996, no writ) (prosecutor entitled only to qualified immunity in making statements to press). 5 Under the federal standards for qualified immunity, a prosecutor would be “shielded from liability for civil damages … insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Kerr v. Puckett

967 F. Supp. 354 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · May 21, 1997

Once a defendant has raised a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right. See Kernats, 35 F.3d at 1176 (citing Rakovich, 850 F.2d at 1209 ). … Consequently, these Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from Kerr’s suit for damages on his Establishment Clause claims.

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.

Jones v. Marcum

197 F. Supp. 2d 991 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 11, 2002

is per se violative of a “clearly established” right. … The ultimate, more particularized question in the qualified immunity context is whether Jones’ had a clearly established right under the facts as he states them. This case falls into the realm of Brandenburg .

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

Crawford v. Geiger

131 F. Supp. 3d 703 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 22, 2015

The Sixth Circuit has summarized the doctrine of qualified immunity and related principles: Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate clearly established … before trial whether the defendant did acts that violate clearly established rights.”

Swedlund v. Foster

657 N.W.2d 39 · South Dakota Supreme Court · Jan 15, 2003

Otherwise, the protection of qualified immunity is effectively lost if there must be a trial to establish that no trial is necessary. Saucier v. … The test articulated by this Court in Hart is similar: “To find whether qualified immunity applies, the test is to ask if the officer’s conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable

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.

Attocknie Ex Rel. M.P. v. Smith

798 F.3d 1252 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 24, 2015

Cherry’s entry of Aaron’s home was clearly contrary to well-established law. He is not entitled to qualified immunity on the claim of unlawful entry. … It then summarizes his view of the law of qualified immunity but concludes that “[t]he second stage of qualified immunity analysis, whether a right was ‘clearly established’ need not even be performed, as Defendant Smith

Amore v. Novarro

624 F.3d 522 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 22, 2010

Government officials are entitled to 2 qualified immunity "insofar as their conduct does not violate 3 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a 4 reasonable person would have known." … Ct. at 813 ("We now hold that the Saucier procedure should not be regarded as an inflexible requirement and that petitioners are entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that it was not clearly established

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.

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.

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.

Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed, M. v. Irving Indep. Sch. Dist.

300 F. Supp. 3d 857 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 13, 2018

In analyzing qualified immunity claims, the Supreme Court has "repeatedly told courts ... to not define clearly established law at a high level of generality." Mullenix v. … "[T]o evaluate the 'clearly established law' prong of the qualified immunity test, the court must ask whether, at the time of the incident, the law clearly established that such conduct would violate the right."

Manzanares v. Roosevelt Cnty. Adult Det. Ctr.

331 F. Supp. 3d 1260 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Aug 30, 2018

Although the Tenth Circuit has recognized a sliding scale for qualified immunity's clearly established inquiry, see Casey v. … Fitzgerald , when the Supreme Court moved to an objective test, the clearly established prong became a part of the qualified immunity test.