Case law

Herrera v. City of Albuquerque

589 F.3d 1064 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 14, 2009

O’Brien [wa]s entitled to qualified immunity and [thus was] immune from suit.” Id. at 120. … 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

Robert Saterdalen v. James Spencer

725 F.3d 838 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 5, 2013

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability and the burdens of litigation in a § 1983 suit unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable … The question of qualified immunity thus “generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the [official’s] action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Allen v. Kevin Taylor

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 21, 2025

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … For now, the officers cannot avail themselves of qualified immunity because Allen has identified a clearly established right to be free from unlawful custody as part of a prosecution.

Garcia-Montoya v. State Treasurer's Office

130 N.M. 25 · New Mexico Supreme Court · Jan 18, 2001

Qualified immunity “shield[s] [government officials performing discretionary functions] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … “clearly established” at the time of the official’s conduct.

Wiggins v. Greiner

132 F. App'x 861 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 18, 2005

Wiggins submits that the highlighted language in Roberts clearly establishes that prosecution efforts to locate a witness must be “undertaken prior to trial” to demonstrate good-faith. … Whether the challenged photo display in this case clearly qualifies as a confirmatory identification is an issue of state law not relevant to our habeas review. See Estelle v.

Phillips v. Roane County, Tenn.

534 F.3d 531 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2008

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Was the Law Clearly Established?

Kirk Wayne McBride, Sr. v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Aug 28, 2008

Government officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity from a suit for damages so long as the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which … Qualified immunity shields an officer if a reasonable officer could have believed the action to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed. Hunter v.

City of Palestine v. Ramirez

925 S.W.2d 250 · Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District (Tyler) · Jan 26, 1996

In her response to the motion for summary judgment Ramirez asserted, inter alia, that the summary judgment evidence was insufficient to establish all of the elements of qualified immunity as a matter of law. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense; the burden is on the defendant to establish each element of that defense. City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 S.W.2d 650, 653 (Tex.1994); Rhodes v.

Corona v. City of Clovis

959 F.3d 1278 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 27, 2020

5 clearly established at the relevant time. … Specifically, when a defendant raises the qualified- immunity defense at summary judgment, the plaintiff must establish (1) the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established

Elder v. Holloway

975 F.2d 1388 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 19, 1991

In opposition to the officers’ motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity, Elder proffered three out-of-state cases to show that the law was clearly established that a warrant was required to make a “constructive entry … On the issue of qualified immunity, Elder argued in the district court that the law was clearly established that an Idaho warrant was required to make a “constructive *1391 entry” over the threshold.

Estate of C.A. v. Castro

547 F. App'x 621 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 25, 2013

Individual Defendants’ Qualified Immunity State actors sued in their individual capacity under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … An official “does not lose qualified immunity merely because a certain right is clearly established in the abstract....

DeWald v. Wyner

674 So. 2d 836 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 15, 1996

It is well settled that public officials are immune in their individual capacities from suits for damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In this case immunity turns on the second element, namely whether defendants' conduct violated clearly established constitutional law. If applicable law is unsettled, immunity necessarily results. Nicholson v.

Terry A. Veney v. Michael Hogan Carol Hernandez Frank D. Fleischer and Martha Knicely

70 F.3d 917 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 24, 1996

For a law to be “clearly established” in the context of qualified immunity, [t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. … The trial court need not deny a defendant the right to qualified immunity simply because a complaint adequately alleges violation of clearly established law.

Freeman v. Fallin

422 F. Supp. 2d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 2006

Qualified immunity “shield[s officials] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … contain hidden, and at the time unexpounded, constitutional roadblocks. 9 Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment right was not clearly established, Butera, 235 F.3d at 646 , and these defendants are entitled to qualified

Grantham v. Trickey

21 F.3d 289 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 12, 1994

balancing test, it can rarely be considered “clearly established” for purposes of the Harlow qualified immunity standard.... ... … We then addressed the city council members’ assertion of qualified immunity and concluded that qualified immunity was not appropriate because Casey’s right of free speech was clearly established. Id. at 804.

Mihos v. Swift

358 F.3d 91 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 13, 2004

For a plaintiff to overcome a qualified immunity defense, he must show that his allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation; that the right was clearly established; and that a reasonable official would have … Under Wood, then, a plaintiff could usually avoid an adverse pre-trial qualified immunity ruling by merely alleging (1) a constitutional violation (2) of clearly established law (3) by a public official

DeNucci v. Henningsen

248 Or. App. 59 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 8, 2012

of ORS 162.257 was not clearly established, so he was entitled to qualified immunity. … Despite the lack of probable cause for the arrest, however, Henningsen is still entitled to qualified immunity if plaintiffs right not to be arrested for her conduct was not “clearly established” at the time.

Langford v. Norris

614 F.3d 445 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 20, 2010

The court also rejected the state defendants’ qualified immunity defense, stating in generic terms that “the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to adequate medical care and treatment [were] clearly established.” … It remains to decide whether the right Byus allegedly violated was clearly established.

Halperin v. Kissinger

578 F. Supp. 231 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 13, 1984

The doctrine *234 of qualified immunity now focuses on whether a government official's conduct "violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … judgment based on qualified immunity.

Olson v. City of Hooper Bay

251 P.3d 1024 · Alaska Supreme Court · Apr 15, 2011

But another primary purpose-immunity from damages-remains attainable if the claim of qualified immunity is established at trial. 62 *1037 In Sheldon, we affirmed the superior court's decision to grant qualified immunity to … When qualified immunity cannot be established as a matter of law because genuine issues of material fact bar summary judgment, qualified immunity may still be established at trial to shield against damages.