Case law

Simpson v. Hines

730 F. Supp. 753 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Nov 8, 1989

If a reasonable police officer in the position of the defendant police officers would have known his or her use of force violated the clearly established law, it is objectively unreasonable. Graham v. … This court finds, taking the plaintiffs’ allegations as true, that a reasonable police officer in the position of the defendant police officers, would have known that the actions taken in the jail cell violated clearly established

Stanley R. Guffey v. Eldridge Wyatt, Officer

18 F.3d 869 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 9, 1994

Officer Wyatt contends the trial court erred in finding his alleged conduct violated clearly established law. … As our jurisprudence makes clear, when a defendant raises qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish the defendant violated clearly established constitutional rights. Hannula v.

Zulema Longoria v. San Benito Indep Con Sch Dist

942 F.3d 258 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 4, 2019

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … We therefore turn to the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis and find that, regardless of whether M.L.’s rights were violated, the right at issue was not clearly established. See Davis v.

Schifanelli v. Loveday

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2026

Qualified immunity “Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from suit under [Section] 1983 unless their conduct violates clearly established law.” Zorn v. Linton, No. 25-297, 2026 WL 795469, at *2 (U.S. … June 9, 2025) (denying a motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity in a case that did not involve a drug-sniffing dog because Rodriguez is clearly established law).

Melinda Thompson v. City of Lebanon

831 F.3d 366 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 26, 2016

ANALYSIS Qualified immunity shields government officials from standing trial for civil liability in their performance of discretionary functions unless their actions violate clearly established rights. Harlow v. … Floyd affirmed the denial of qualified immunity on facts similar to those in this case.

Joseph Watson v. Patrick Pearson

928 F.3d 507 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 28, 2019

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 … In sum, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated Watson's constitutional rights and because those rights were clearly established when the incident occurred.

Zollicoffer v. Livingston

169 F. Supp. 3d 687 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 14, 2016

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable … That “runs directly counter to Farmer’s directive,” and contravenes clearly established law. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff has alleged facts that could defeat qualified immunity.

Penate v. Hanchett

944 F.3d 358 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 13, 2019

This appeal raises issues under the clearly established law prong of the qualified immunity test for supervisory state officials. … Hanchett does not separately argue that any ruling on our part on the clearly established prong of qualified immunity is "inextricably intertwined," and so he has waived such argument. See United States v.

Jennings v. Jones

499 F.3d 2 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 17, 2007

Prong Two: Whether the Law Was Clearly Established The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis asks “whether the constitutional right ... was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the incident such that it would ‘be … violated that clearly established constitutional right.”

Bustillos v. El Paso County Hospital District

226 F. Supp. 3d 778 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Jun 6, 2016

Here, the Court finds the second qualified immunity prong dispositive. … The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to decide whether it is “clearly established” that medical personnel must have their own independent reasonable suspicion before searching a detained

Royal Crown Day Care LLC v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

746 F.3d 538 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 19, 2014

Defendants’ Qualified Immunity Defense “The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if they can establish either that (1) ‘a constitutional right was [not] violated’ or (2) ‘the right was [not] clearly established.’ … established.

Williams v. Pate

463 S.W.3d 734 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 20, 2015

Appellees filed an answer asserting the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … of qualified immunity.

Tuskan v. Jackson County

134 F. Supp. 3d 1041 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Sep 25, 2015

Legal Standard The defense of qualified immunity shields governmental officials from civil liability for damages based upon the performance of discretionary functions if the officials’ actions did not violate clearly established … Thornton is Entitled to Qualified Immunity With Respect to Tuskan’s False Arrest Claim Tuskan’s claim for false arrest derives from his clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures of his

Richard Manriquez v. Joel Ensley

46 F.4th 1124 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 30, 2022

But there still might not be “clearly established” case law in our circuit to withstand qualified immunity. Cf. Jessop v. … The officers are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established then that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.

Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. v. Karen Smith

889 F.3d 608 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 2, 2018

In determining whether qualified immunity applies, courts “must determine whether: (1) the facts adduced constitute the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the … It is that rock upon which the district court’s qualified immunity decision founders. The district court was satisfied that, as it said, “[t]he extraterritorialty doctrine has been clearly established for decades.”

Nelson v. Town of St. Johnsbury, LaMotte, Oddy, Ruggles, Rust, Timson and Town of St. Johnsbury

198 Vt. 277 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jan 16, 2015

The Town argues that its selectboard members are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established right. … We therefore conclude that the law was not clearly established and the selectboard is entitled to qualified immunity. On this point, we ¿ffirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.

Lopez v. Robinson

914 F.2d 486 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 17, 1990

the qualified immunity inquiry. … The prison officials have qualified immunity from both claims.

Williams v. Austen

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 16, 2021

Dkt. 20 at 13-15. 10 The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil 11 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Courts may consider these two questions in either order, and a favorable determination for 15 the defendant on either establishes qualified immunity.

Barbara Hager v. Arkansas Dept. of Health

735 F.3d 1009 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 14, 2013

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a court must dismiss a complaint against a government official in his individual capacity that fails to state a claim for violation of “clearly established statutory or constitutional … See also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 685; Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526 (“Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before

Estate of Williams v. Indiana State Police Department

797 F.3d 468 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 13, 2015

‘clearly established.’” … “Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.” Id. at 1776.