Case law

Jon Hyde v. City of Willcox

23 F.4th 863 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 6, 2022

To determine whether an officer enjoys qualified immunity, the court asks, in the order it chooses, (i) whether the alleged misconduct violated a constitutional right and (ii) whether the right was clearly established at … Pralgo and Callahan-English violated clearly established law.

Rippy v. Hattaway

270 F.3d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 2, 2001

When a defendant asserts qualified immunity in the face of a claim under § 1983, the plaintiff bears an additional burden of pleading facts that, if taken as true, establish not only the violation of his rights, but also … While the promulgation and enforcement of procedures is a conceivable basis for a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff overcomes a qualified immunity defense only by identifying a particularized, clearly established right that

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.

Hereford v. Warren

536 F.3d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 7, 2008

The district court granted ha-beas relief after concluding that the state court’s holding represented an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C … That conclusion, however, misapprehends controlling law for AEDPA purposes; the language found in Minsky is not a Supreme Court holding that reflects clearly established federal law.

Alexys Sherry Parker v. Officer Adam Chard

777 F.3d 977 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 29, 2015

Qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from liability for conduct that “‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) there was a deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.

James Vandevender v. Captain Walter Sass

970 F.3d 972 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 31, 2020

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Deputy v. City of Seymour

34 F. Supp. 3d 925 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 21, 2014

Under the circumstances presented here, the Court considers it most prudent to proceed to the second question regarding qualified immunity — whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the violation. … First, in the context of qualified immunity, the Seventh Circuit has emphasized “[i]mportantly, the right must be clearly established in a particularized sense, rather than in an abstract or general sense.”

Jimenez v. City of Sacramento

District Court, E.D. California · May 8, 2025

The Officers Are Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity. 5 Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “For purposes of qualified 22 immunity's clearly established prong, there does not have to be a case directly on 23 point.” D'Braunstein v. Cal.

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.

White v. Chapman

119 F. Supp. 3d 420 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 6, 2015

The Court holds that Deputy Phillips is not entitled to qualified immunity in this casé because genuine issues of material fact remain regarding whether Defendant violated Plaintiffs clearly established Fourth Amendment rights … As to qualified immunity, the constitutional rights at issue are clearly established, and a reasonable officer would have been aware of the Fourth Amendment requirement of probable cause, for arrest or issuing a summons on

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

Reece v. Groose

60 F.3d 487 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 20, 1995

was clearly established. 9 On the other side of the line is Anderson v. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil lawsuits when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v.

WV Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority v. The Estate of COdy Lawrence Grove

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 20, 2020

that he engaged in any act or omission related to the suicide of the Estate’s decedent that established the violation of a clearly established right. … 17 This Court has established numerous steps that must be examined in order to find whether qualified immunity protections apply in a particular case.

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

City of Akron v. Brown

122 N.E.3d 672 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 2018

(Emphasis added.) {¶ 8} The plain language of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b) clearly provides qualified individuals with immunity for a minor drug possession offense pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2925. … Brown had qualified for immunity and, consequently, dismissal of a charge for minor drug possession, any allied offenses would not "merge" for that purpose and there would be no grounds to extend immunity or dismiss any charges