Case law

Brenden v. Castro

District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 26, 2025

Therefore, Castro is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that individual defendants could be liable on a takings claim. See Novak v. … Castro is also not entitled to qualified immunity because it is clearly established that a false claim of lawful authority can invalidate consent. See id; Amos v.

Texas Department of Criminal Justice v. Thomas

263 S.W.3d 212 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Apr 19, 2007

from suit, and Pierson’s motion for summary judgment asserted qualified immunity. … 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

Willis v. Blevins

957 F. Supp. 2d 690 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 30, 2013

Determining whether qualified immunity applies entails a two-step inquiry: (1) “whether a constitutional right would have been violated on the facts alleged;” and (2) “whether the right was clearly established.” … Moreover, based on the discussion of Buckley and Kalina above, the right not to be deprived of one’s liberty by the fabrication of evidence is clearly established.

Joseph C. Avakoff, Appellant-Applicant v. Southern Pacific Company and Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Appellees-Opposers

765 F.2d 1097 · Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Jun 19, 1985

Without more, this type of shipment is clearly not activity amounting to a sale or transportation of the goods in commerce and does not constitute a bona fide shipment sufficient to lay a foundation for federal registration … Clearly, the shipment by applicant’s manufacturer to the applicant was not use of the mark by applicant in commerce. Conclusion The order of the board granting Southern Pacific’s motion for summary judgment is affirmed.

Tapanga Hardeman v. David Wathen

933 F.3d 816 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 12, 2019

When attempting to defeat an assertion of qualified im- munity, the burden is on the plaintiffs to show that a particu- lar right is “clearly established.” … “Because a qualified immunity defense so closely depends ‘on the facts of the case,’ a ‘complaint is generally not dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on qualified immunity grounds.’”

Eastland County Cooperative Dispatch v. Poyner

64 S.W.3d 182 · Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) · Jan 10, 2002

The motions for summary judgment implicated the doctrines of sovereign immunity, official immunity, and qualified immunity. … Was that general prohibition the source for clearly established law which the officers violated in this case?

Denise Coley v. Lucas County, Ohio

799 F.3d 530 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 21, 2015

Gray’s argument that his actions did not violate clearly established law thus also fails. 2. … At the time of the events alleged in the complaint, those rights were clearly established.

Mann Ex Rel. Estate of Mann v. Palmerton Area School District

872 F.3d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 22, 2017

In addressing the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, we must define the right allegedly violated at the appropriate level of specificity. Sharp v. … We granted qualified immunity to the gym teacher, concluding that a child did not have a clearly established right to dry-drowning intervention protocols while participating in gym class. Id. at 641.

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.

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 .

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.

Roger Miller Music, Inc., and Mary A. Miller, Plaintiffs-Appellants/cross-Appellees v. Sony/atv Publishing, Llc, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant

477 F.3d 383 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 13, 2007

Rather, a motion under Rule 59(e) “must either clearly establish a manifest error of law or must present newly discovered evidence.” World Univ., Inc., 978 F.2d at 16 ; FDIC v. … Winchester-Conant Prop., Inc., 322 F.3d 26, 40 (1st Cir.2003) (“Uses of the copyrighted work that stay within the scope of a nonexclusive license are immunized from infringement suits.”).

Rogers v. Jarrett

63 F.4th 971 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 30, 2023

conduct is clearly established.”22 It just isn’t enough to identify a right as “a broad general proposition.”23 The district court did not address qualified immunity’s second step. … Griffin27 supports that Jarrett and Bridges violated clearly established 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

Rios v. City of Azusa

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 20, 2026

OPINION MILLER, Circuit Judge: In an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, we may consider “whether the facts establish a violation of a clearly … In such an appeal, we may review “whether the facts establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, thus defeating qualified immunity.” Peck, 51 F.4th at 885.

Sawyer v. Coleman

245 Ga. App. 37 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jul 12, 2000

This requirement that plaintiff show a clearly established right is a strenuous one: For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such … In establishing that a right is clearly established so as to overcome a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must rely upon specific, supporting case law: General propositions have little to do with the concept of qualified

HARAPAT v. Vigil

676 F. Supp. 2d 1250 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Oct 13, 2009

Clearly Established Law. … Qualified immunity shields state officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · May 13, 2004

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an individual is immune from suit if he undertook the actions complained of in good faith in the performance of his duties and the acts do not violate any clearly established constitutional … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not apply where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Id. ; Robinson v.

Ritchie v. Turner

559 S.W.3d 822 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 2018

Recognizing that these actions were clearly discretionary in nature, we held the kindergarten teacher in Turner was entitled to qualified official immunity. Id. at 878 . In Patton v. … As to the objective reasonableness test, Doe has not met her burden to show a violation of a constitutional, statutory, or other clearly established right.

Lamb v. Holmes

162 S.W.3d 902 · Kentucky Supreme Court · May 19, 2005

establish searches conducted in either described manner would be unreasonable, and therefore the teachers/administrators are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects state and local officials who carry out executive and administrative functions from personal liability so long as their actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights