Case law

Priester v. City of Riviera Beach

208 F.3d 919 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 4, 2000

Judgment as a Matter of Law—Qualified Immunity 1. … Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Wagner v. Loza

District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Dec 16, 2021

Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for claims against them in their individual capacities. See, e.g., Williams v. … right was “clearly- established;” and (3) whether the official’s actions were objectively unreasonable).

Denise Hughes v. Monique Locure

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 29, 2026

Though we typically re- view only final decisions, “the question of whether a complaint states a violation of clearly established law sufficient to overcome a qualified immunity defense does present … The district court also applied the third method in ruling that Moss’s rights were sufficiently clearly established to overcome Locure’s qualified immunity defense.

Bell v. Fort Wayne Police Department

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 31, 2019

“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 … The United States Supreme Court recently reiterated the standard in qualified immunity cases: Under our cases, the clearly established right must be defined with specificity.

Holcomb v. McCraw

262 F. Supp. 3d 437 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Jun 27, 2017

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions” from civil liability for claims under federal law “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Even if an official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is “nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable.” Wallace v.

Rouse v. Plantier

987 F. Supp. 302 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 5, 1997

Although most defenses of qualified immunity stand or fall on whether the right allegedly violated was “clearly established,” it is quite clear that even where the right is clearly established, the defense is still available … been clearly established.

Spacek v. Charles

928 S.W.2d 88 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Jul 18, 1996

Whether an official has immunity for an allegedly unlawful official action generally turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action as assessed in light of the legal rules clearly established at the time of the … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY UNDER THE TEXAS EDUCATION CODE In their third point of error, Spa-cek and Ramsey submit the trial court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment as to Charles’ state claims because they established

Philip R. Plant v. Morton International, Inc.

212 F.3d 929 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 12, 2000

The ADA Claim In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, Plant must show 1) that he is disabled; 2) that he is otherwise qualified for his previous position with Morton, with or without reasonable … Although the evidence did not clearly indicate that Plant’s condition was temporary, Plant was unable to come forward with any evidence that it was permanent, and the mere possibility of recurrence is not sufficient to establish

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.

Mitchell v. Town of Hayneville, Alabama

District Court, M.D. Alabama · Feb 6, 2023

Qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Whether the Right Was Clearly Established The court now turns to the remaining qualified-immunity determination: Whether Reeves, Tyson-Bailey

Eng v. Cooley

552 F.3d 1062 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 14, 2009

If a plaintiffs constitutional rights were not clearly established at the time of the violation, then qualified immunity should be granted. 2. Whether Eng’s Rights Were Clearly Established a. … established’ to preclude qualified immunity.”

Walker v. Corizon Health

947 F.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 14, 2020

This court may choose to address either of the two qualified-immunity requirements first because, if “the plaintiff fails to establish either prong of the two-pronged qualified immunity standard, the defendant prevails on … immunity, the complaint must allege specific facts showing each defendant violated the defendant’s clearly established constitutional rights).

Sabir v. District of Columbia

755 A.2d 449 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 2000

Absent violation of “a clearly established right,”a police officer will not be subject to § 1983 liability. Id. at 1015. As the D.C. Circuit articulated the standard in Wardlaw v. … Generally, the review of a deniál of qualified immunity is a question of law — “whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions.” Mitchell v.

Cantrell v. DeKalb County

78 S.W.3d 902 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Aug 3, 2001

The Qualified Immunity Defense The dispositive issue for this appeal is whether the law enforcement officials have presented undisputed facts demonstrating that they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … Cantrell’s clearly established rights. ■ 1. Mr. Cantrell’s Free Exercise Rights Mr. Cantrell, like all persons, possesses certain clearly established rights with regard to the practice of his religion.

Graham v. Dall. Area Rapid Transit

288 F. Supp. 3d 711 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 28, 2017

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. … This second part of the qualified immunity inquiry considers whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Fred Halcomb, Jr. v. Tamarra Ravenell

992 F.3d 316 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 30, 2021

Determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity “typically involves two inquiries: (1) whether the plaintiff has established the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly … Here, we conclude that even assuming a violation of Appellee’s due process rights, Appellant is entitled to qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Petzak v. Nevada Ex Rel. Department of Corrections

579 F. Supp. 2d 1330 · District Court, D. Nevada · Sep 23, 2008

Dobel’s motion (# 18) for summary judgment raises only the issue of qualified immunity. A. Qualified Immunity and Money Damages Qualified immunity is a valid defense for a public official in an action for damages. … right in question was clearly established in the specific context of the case.

Megan Green v. Cliff Sommer

52 F.4th 734 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 1, 2022

issue,’ involve a clearly established violation of federal law.” … On an appeal from a denial of qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss phase, “this court is constrained to the legal question whether the particular facts support the [plaintiff’s] claim that [defendants] violated clearly

Daniel Andrews v. City of Henderson

35 F.4th 710 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 23, 2022

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages unless an official “violate[s] a clearly established constitutional right.” Monzon v. … Clearly Established Right Even if a government official violates a constitutional right, the official is entitled to qualified immunity unless the violated right was clearly established at the time of the incident.

McKinsey v. Vernon

130 Idaho 354 · Idaho Supreme Court · Jun 5, 1997

The three-part inquiry to determine if a public official asserting qualified immunity is entitled to the defense is: 1. Was there a clearly established law? 2. … Did the conduct of the party asserting qualified immunity violate a clearly established right of the party claiming the violation? 3. Was the conduct of the party asserting qualified immunity reasonable? Farnworth v.