Case law

Peter Clayton McClendon v. City of Columbia, City of Columbia James R. Carney

305 F.3d 314 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 5, 2002

established law, and that he was not entitled to qualified immunity. … entitled to qualified immunity, finding that “the law on third-party entry into homes was [not] clearly established in April 1992.”

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.

United States v. Arnott

758 F.3d 40 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 2, 2014

DISCUSSION When reviewing the district court's disposition of a motion to suppress, we accept the court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. See United States v.

Hernandez v. Wells

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 20, 2022

immunity on summary judgment because his qualified immunity turned on a dispute of fact). … “Falsifying facts to establish probable cause is clearly unconstitutional and has been ‘clearly established’ long before [Hernandez’s] arrest.” Mead v. McKeithen, 571 F. App’x 788, 792 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam).

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.

James Saylor v. Randy Kohl, M.D.

812 F.3d 637 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 29, 2016

was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” … the violation was clearly established at the time in question, what was known to a person who might be shielded by qualified immunity, and the reasonableness of defendants'] actions.

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.

Blair Hays v. J. Gastelo

District Court, C.D. California · May 4, 2021

Qualified Immunity 20 Courts recognize qualified immunity “to balance competing values: not only the 21] importance of a damages remedy to protect the rights of citizens . . . but also ‘the need to protect … As 28 such, “[o]nce the official pleads qualified immunity, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove two elements: (1) that the right was violated; and (2) that the right was clearly established at the 2| time

Clancy v. McCabe

441 Mass. 311 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 26, 2004

McCabe moved for summary judgment, claiming he was entitled to qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials, in the course of performing discretionary tasks, from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Hicks Hagan v. Funk

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Sep 29, 2025

statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.” … For purposes of qualified immunity, Defendant challenges only the clearly established prong.4 Defendant argues that it was not clearly established that changing Plaintiff’s job responsibilities because of

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.

Sugg v. Albuquerque Public School District

128 N.M. 1 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 1999

Qualified immunity is subject to the collateral order doctrine which grants this Court appellate jurisdiction over suits barred by qualified immunity because qualified immunity is a final bar to suit and is therefore immediately … that the law was clearly established at the time when the alleged violation occurred.

Patton v. Bickford

529 S.W.3d 717 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Apr 1, 2016

We also conclude that the Teachers are not immune from suit on the basis of qualified official immunity. … SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS MAKING SCHOOL POLICIES HAVE QUALIFIED OFFICIAL IMMUNITY; TEACHERS IMPLEMENTING SCHOOL POLICIES DO NOT .We begin by more clearly delineating the Estate’s arguments.

Manchester v. State of Louisiana

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Nov 13, 2024

Again, qualification examinations are generally conducted at the pretext stage of a Title VII failure-to-promote analysis, and even if Plaintiff were “clearly better qualified,” Toval, 614 F. … dofes] not establish that [an applicant] is clearly better qualified” (quoting Price v. Fed. Express Corp., 283 F.3d 715, 723 (5th Cir. 2002)); see also Deines v. Tex.

Wallace v. King

626 F.2d 1157 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 1, 1980

Doe v. Connecticut Department of Children & Youth Services

712 F. Supp. 277 · District Court, D. Connecticut · May 17, 1989

Qualified Immunity Qualified or “good faith” immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability to the extent that their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Dennis Ryan, Jr. v. Officer Mary Armstrong

850 F.3d 419 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 7, 2017

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless he has violated a clearly established constitutional right. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009). A. … Although the district court did not reach this question, “[w]hether an asserted federal right was clearly established at a particular time, so that a public official who allegedly violated the right has no qualified immunity

Mosher

District Court, D. Arizona · Mar 9, 2026

Clearly Established Right 21 Although a jury could find that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, 22 an “official is entitled to qualified immunity unless … established at the time of the incident and holds that 8 || Defendant Wick is entitled to qualified immunity.