Case law

Phillips v. Garcia

147 So. 3d 569 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 13, 2014

Additionally, Phillips argued that she was entitled to qualified immunity. … Affirmed. 5 We also find it significant that Phillips’s motion for 57.105 fees did not allege qualified immunity as a grounds for entitlement to an award of fees. Cf. Lago v.

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.

Conner v. Heiman

672 F.3d 1126 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 9, 2012

We further hold that Heiman and Neil did not violate clearly established rights by arresting Conner. … HEIMAN 2757 clearly established, the Supreme Court has specified that the application of that requirement must be clearly established in a particularized context. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202.

Morgan v. Bubar

115 Conn. App. 603 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jul 14, 2009

The defendants argue that Carini and Castronova are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … “When [a motion for summary judgment] is based on assertion of qualified immunity, the first issue is whether a clearly established right is at stake. ...

Housley v. Holquist

879 F. Supp. 2d 472 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 30, 2011

The Housleys bear the burden of proving the violation of a constitutional right, but the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if they prove that the right was not clearly established. See Wilson v. … Finally, the Court will not revisit the qualified immunity issue at trial.

Morgan v. Morgensen

465 F.3d 1041 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 6, 2006

Whether the Constitutional Right was Clearly Established [7] We proceed to the second qualified immunity inquiry: whether that right was clearly established. … A prison official is not entitled to qualified immunity if the law governing his conduct was clearly established such that a reasonable prison official would know that his conduct was unlawful.

Shechter v. Comptroller of City of New York

79 F.3d 265 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 21, 1996

Accordingly, defendants-appellants' pleading is insufficient to establish their qualified immunity defense. 21 Because defendants-appellants' qualified immunity defense fails with respect to the scope of authority issue, … court's ruling on the issue of qualified immunity must be affirmed for the reasons previously stated, we will not proceed to a definitive resolution of the "clearly established right" issue at this juncture.

Rosenthal v. County of Madison

339 Mont. 419 · Montana Supreme Court · Oct 23, 2007

“The doctrine of qualified immunity operates to shield government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Moreover, even if we were to speculate with Rosenthal that new evidence would establish that Zenker’s conduct was entitled to qualified immunity rather than absolute immunity, he does not show how he will pierce the qualified

Derek Westwater v. Kevin Church

60 F.4th 1124 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 23, 2023

Alternatively, the court ruled that Church was entitled to qualified immunity on the federal § 1983 claim because any constitutional violation was not clearly established. Westwater appeals. … In these circumstances, summary judgment should not be granted on either qualified immunity issue, whether the force used was reasonable and, if not, whether the violation was clearly established.

Curtis Arnold v. Patrick Jones C/o Blythe C/o Creeden C/o Scheers C/o Edwards C/o Whitson Lt. Olson

891 F.2d 1370 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 19, 1990

However, prison officials are generally immune from suit on the basis of qualified good faith immunity unless “their conduct ... violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The existence of a clearly established right, however, does not end our inquiry into whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Taft v. Vines

70 F.3d 304 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 16, 1995

Under that analysis, we found that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity in that case because: (1) the right not to be arrested without probable cause was clearly established; and (2) a reasonably competent … Under the first two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis, it is plain that the specific right in question — the right not to be stopped and frisked without reasonable suspicion — was indeed clearly established at the

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

Van Lee Brewer v. Jason Simental

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Oct 15, 2010

defendants and, therefore, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … Those governmental officials are entitled to qualified immunity "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Id.

Belinda Marie Fitzpatrick v. Kyle Hanney

138 F.4th 991 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 30, 2025

Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless those officials (1) violated a constitutional right that (2) was clearly established when the conduct occurred. Bell v. … Because the undisputed facts do not show that Simon plausibly violated Fitzpatrick’s clearly established rights, Simon is entitled to qualified immunity on Fitzpatrick’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims.

Blakely v. Andrade

360 F. Supp. 3d 453 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 23, 2019

If the court answers both the constitutional violation and clearly established questions in the affirmative, the officer is not entitled to qualified immunity. Lytle , 560 F.3d at 410 . … For purposes of qualified immunity, "clearly established" means that the "contours of the right" are "sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right."

Douglas W. Schwenk v. James Hartford Steve Sinclair Robert Mitchell,opinion

204 F.3d 1187 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 29, 2000

This satisfies the first part of the “analytical framework” for determining qualified immunity established in Siegert . … Was the Law 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.

ATKINSON v. APODACA

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 2025

Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Evanson, 615 F.3d 197, 223 (3d Cir. 2010) (burden of establishing entitlement to qualified immunity on summary judgment is on the defendant). See also Collick v. William Paterson U., 699 Fed.

(PC) Anderson v. Becerra

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 17, 2020

Harris, 935 F.3d 670, 675-76 (9th Cir. 2019) (stating that dismissal on 25 immunity grounds may qualify as a strike for failure to state a claim where the immunity defense 26 is clear on the face of the complaint); Washington … the face of the complaint, and 3 the entirety of the complaint is dismissed for a qualifying reason under the PLRA[]”).

United States Ex Rel. Vaughn v. United Biologics, L.L.C.

907 F.3d 187 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 16, 2018

Univ., 171 F.3d 279, 290–94 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that Eleventh Amendment immunity was not waived on this basis). … But this principle of interpretation, known as the “Series-Qualifier Canon,” applies only when context clearly establishes that it is intended. Reading Law at 147–51.