Case law

Clayborne v. Brown

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 20, 2023

violation; and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … But where the law was clearly established, both qualified immunity questions must be addressed. Id.

Lubcke v. Boise City/Ada County Housing Authority

124 Idaho 450 · Idaho Supreme Court · Sep 9, 1993

Under Harlow , Worrell is entitled to qualified immunity only if she did not violate clearly established constitutional law. … Thus, Worrell should be immune from suit *465 if: a) it was not clearly established law in 1986 that a public employee may not be terminated for her exercise of her First Amendment rights, and b) it was not clearly established

Feigin v. Digital Interactive Associates, Inc.

1999 Colo. J. C.A.R. 683 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 1999

Qualified Immunity The commissioner contends that the trial court erred in denying his summary judgment motion requesting a finding that he was immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. We agree. … Whether a right is clearly established is a question of law, and, in reviewing a qualified immunity determination, we must use our full knowledge of all relevant precedents. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. v.

Barboza v. D'Agata

151 F. Supp. 3d 363 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 10, 2015

In this Circuit, even if the right was clearly established, an.officer is entitled to qualified immunity if it was objectively. reasonable for the officer to believe the conduct at issue was lawful, Gonzalez v. … That’s the first prong of the qualified immunity test. *371 I also find that plaintiffs right not to be arrested for the expression at issue was clearly established.

Frank Minor v. Delaware River & Bay Authority

70 F.4th 168 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 8, 2023

“To resolve a claim of qualified immunity, [we] en- gage in a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether the plaintiff suffi- ciently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established … clearly established constitutional right.”

Scott Rabin v. Michael Flynn

725 F.3d 628 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 9, 2013

We find that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful arrest claim, because even if the officers had known what that type of license was, it still would have been reasonable under clearly established … “[A] court may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law without first resolving whether the purported right exists.”

Gloria Bustillos v. El Paso County Hospital Dist

891 F.3d 214 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 23, 2018

The district court held those allegations cannot overcome the Doctors’ and Nurses’ qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly-established. We agree and affirm on that ground. … Granting of qualified immunity on the “clearly-established” prong is not the same as holding that no constitutional violation occurred. That would conflate the two prongs of qualified immunity.

Naumovski v. Norris

934 F.3d 200 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 12, 2019

Qualified Immunity A government official is entitled to immunity from suit whenever (1) his conduct “did not violate clearly established law,” or (2) “it was objectively reasonable for [the official] to believe that … Because Naumovski has failed to produce evidence that could establish that Defendants themselves clearly violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights, Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity

Doe v. Hennepin County

858 F.2d 1325 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 6, 1988

immunity. … This claim is barred by qualified immunity unless evidence of malice or improper motives on the part of defendants is proved. Myers, 810 F.2d at 1457 .

Schmidt v. Stassi

250 F. Supp. 3d 99 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Apr 21, 2017

Governmental officers sued in their individual capacity are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct “did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Thus, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the filming claim because filming the exterior of a ear in a public parking lot did not violated clearly established constitutional law. V.

Ledea v. Metro-Dade County Police Department

681 F. App'x 728 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 27, 2017

To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id. at 1137 . … The officers do not assert the district court erred in its resolution of the second prong of qualified immunity—that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Vette v. Sanders

989 F.3d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 5, 2021

Vette’s clearly established rights under the Fourth Amendment.6 It accordingly held Sergeant Sanders was not entitled to qualified immunity. Sergeant Sanders timely appealed. Although Mr. … Legal Standards and Standard of Review “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Scott v. Britton

16 S.W.3d 173 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Apr 13, 2000

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields an official performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages under section 1983, provided the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … After a governmental official asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that the defendant’s conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Villarreal v. City of Laredo

134 F.4th 273 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 8, 2025

Ct. 2088, 2093 (2012) (qualified immunity applies unless officials “violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct”). … The qualified immunity inquiry asks whether an officer “violate[d] clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818.

Ansley v. Heinrich

925 F.2d 1339 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 11, 1991

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity protects public officials, acting within the scope of their discretionary authority and under clearly established law, from insubstantial lawsuits. Butz v. … In Harlow , the Supreme Court stated that the immunity defense should fail if the law governing the official’s actions has been clearly established.

McCoy v. Meyers

887 F.3d 1034 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 10, 2018

“The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Id. at 1866 (quotations omitted). … McCoy’s clearly established right to be free from the continued use of force after he was effectively subdued. We address both steps of the qualified immunity analysis. a.

City of Lancaster v. Chambers

37 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 980 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1994

judgment on qualified immunity is improper.”). … First, federal immunity may be conferred at the summary judgment stage by the court’s finding that the constitutional right at issue was not clearly established. Elder v.

Carter v. Beebe

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 22, 2026

This argument may have merit on the first step of qualified immunity analysis—constitutional violation, but not the second—clearly established law. Mr. … that Chief Beebe violated clearly established constitutional law, Chief Beebe is entitled to qualified immunity on Mr.

Jackie L. Brown, II v. City of Montgomery

233 W. Va. 119 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Feb 20, 2014

Code, 29-12A-1, et seq., is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known. … Code, 29-12A-1, et seq., is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable

Rogerson v. Fitzpatrick

170 N.C. App. 387 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 17, 2005

Forsyth, for support of the proposition that when a court looks at qualified immunity, "[a]ll it need determine is a question of law." … Likewise, this Court has concluded that when ruling on the defense of qualified immunity, we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established