Case law

In Re Scott County Master Docket

618 F. Supp. 1534 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Oct 2, 1985

plaintiffs have asserted violations of clearly established rights. … Yet a defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity can defeat a section 1983 action prior to discovery only if the plaintiff has not alleged that the defendant violated clearly established rights.

Barna v. Board of School Directors of the Panther Valley School District

143 F. Supp. 3d 205 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 2015

The Defendants are Entitled to 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 … Qualified immunity attaches unless the official’s conduct violated such a clearly established right. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987).

McMurry v. Weaver

142 F.4th 292 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 27, 2025

Based on the facts supported by the summary judgment record, the McMurrys have established that Weaver’s search was a constitutional violation of clearly established law that defeats qualified immunity. … Romero, 937 F.3d at 522–23 (denying qualified immunity on procedural due process claim in part because Gates and Wernecke clearly established the violation); Gates, 537 F.3d at 435; Wernecke, 591 F.3d at 391 n.7.

Kinney v. Weaver

111 F. Supp. 2d 831 · District Court, E.D. Texas · May 16, 2000

Nevertheless, as will be discussed in further detail in the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test, this is irrelevant. The defendants cannot do indirectly that which they could not do directly. … similar to qualified immunity under federal law.

Robert Oglesby v. Amy Lesan

929 F.3d 526 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 3, 2019

Officer Hein and Deputy Lesan moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … To defeat a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that the defendant violated his clearly-established rights. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009).

Foster v. Raspberry

652 F. Supp. 2d 1342 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jul 29, 2009

A right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes in one of three ways: (1) “case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishes] the constitutional right;” (2) “a broad statement of principle within … “In this circuit, the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Lee Krueger and Mary Delacour v. Don Fuhr

991 F.2d 435 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 1, 1993

The District Court’s opinion discusses only Fuhr’s defense ‘‘on the merits," and not his qualified immunity defense. … However, we take this opportunity to suggest that district courts clearly address the qualified immunity issue. 3 .

DeAngelo Thomas-El v. Nicole Francis

99 F.4th 1115 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 23, 2024

Francis and Lee appeal the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. … Finally, we consider whether the law clearly established an inmate’s right to hygiene supplies during the timeframe alleged in the complaint.

Jordan Venema v. Fred West

133 F.4th 625 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 3, 2025

After concluding that the Complaint sufficiently alleged that DeAngelo violated Venema’s constitutional rights, the district court determined that DeAngelo was not entitled to qualified immunity, because clearly established … Violation of a Clearly Established Right Having concluded that the Estate sufficiently pleaded that DeAngelo violated Venema’s constitutional rights, we turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis

Mitchell v. Stewart

26 F. Supp. 3d 1322 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jun 12, 2014

Plaintiffs thus “bear the burden of establishing that qualified immunity is not appropriate.” Id. … To lose qualified immunity, an officer must violate clearly established law. For a right to be clearly established, the constitutional question must be “beyond debate.” Stanton v.

Paul Montemuro v. Jim Thorpe Area School District

99 F.4th 639 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 1, 2024

The defendant Board members and District (collectively, the “Defendants”) asserted 2 qualified immunity, but the District Court held that Montemuro had a clearly established property right … A Magistrate Judge recommended that the District Court deny the motion to dismiss for qualified immunity because Montemuro had a “clearly established” property right and was fired without due process. (J.A. at 26.)

Wilson v. Montano

715 F.3d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 3, 2013

Appellants claim they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Appellants nonetheless argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established law delineating which of them had the obligation to provide Wilson with a probable cause hearing.

Eddie Ford v. City of Yakima

706 F.3d 1188 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 8, 2013

Clearly Established Right The officers are nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity if Ford’s right was not clearly established when the officers booked and jailed him. … Because the law concerning the right in question was clearly established at the time of Ford’s arrest, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity. IV.

Youngblood v. Qualls

308 F. Supp. 3d 1184 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 6, 2018

immunity framework discussed above, the Court must examine "first, whether plaintiff has established a constitutional violation under the three-part Worrell standard and, second, whether the law was clearly established such … Thus, our circuit uses a sliding scale to determine when law is clearly established.

Tan Lam v. City of Los Banos

976 F.3d 986 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 25, 2020

In sum, the district court properly denied the Rule 50(b) motion on qualified immunity as to Lam’s Fourth Amendment claim. The law was clearly established at the 30 LAM V. … Officer Acosta is Entitled to Qualified Immunity An officer is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate clearly established law. See Ashcroft v. al- Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011).

Cole v. Buchanan County School Board

328 F. App'x 204 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 14, 2009

established prong” of the qualified immunity analysis). … The “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis turns on “the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken

William R. Schwartzman, M.D. v. Fred Valenzuela Bamford Frankland, David Swoap

846 F.2d 1209 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 17, 1988

Qualified Immunity. The appellants next argue that the district court should have granted them summary judgment based upon qualified immunity against suit. … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

T & M HOMES, INC. v. Township of Mansfield

162 N.J. Super. 497 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 7, 1978

Defendants claim that they are entitled to an absolute immunity, while plaintiffs concede qualified immunity but no more. … In addition to overcoming a defense of qualified immunity, they must establish policy or custom which violates a constitutional right. In this action there is no point in holding defendants board and committee liable.

Hernandez v. Skinner

383 F. Supp. 3d 1077 · District Court, D. Montana · May 29, 2019

Qualified immunity shields public officials from suit unless the plaintiff can show (1) a violation of a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation. … "Qualified immunity is no immunity at all 'if clearly established' law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures." City & Cty. Of S.F. v.

Robert Stewart v. Donald Donges

915 F.2d 572 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 17, 1990

The test for qualified immunity is whether defendants violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Once a defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity as a defense to an action, “[t]he plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was clearly established.”