Case law

Carolyn Clanton v. Jody Cooper

129 F.3d 1147 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 17, 1997

Such immunity is “qualified” in that it does not obtain when otherwise immune officials violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id.; Gehl Group v. … If these facts, taken together, do not amount to “coercion” under 'Clearly established law, then Cooper is entitled to qualified immunity.

Fox v. Government of the District of Columbia

794 F.3d 25 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 17, 2015

Officer Boyd moved for judgment on the pleadings for Count 1, arguing that he is protected by qualified immunity. The district court explained, to overcome Officer Boyd’s claim to qualified immunity, Mrs. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects police officers “from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they have violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct

Halcomb v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

526 F. Supp. 2d 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 14, 2007

If so, the Court then must inquire whether the right allegedly violated was “clearly established” — that is, whether “ ‘the contours of the right [were] sufficiently clear that [an objectively] reasonable officer would understand … violated established law.

Grider v. City of Auburn, Ala.

618 F.3d 1240 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 7, 2010

Qualified and State-Law Immunity Doctrines As to Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims, “[qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly … Courts utilize a two-part framework to evaluate qualified immunity defenses. 19 One inquiry in a qualified immunity analysis is whether the plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation. Hope v.

Maestas v. State of Colorado

351 F.3d 1001 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 26, 2003

was clearly established such that a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have known that [his] conduct violated that right.” … Maestas possesses a clearly established right to be free of such harassment. Sh.A. ex rel. J.A. v. Tucumcari Mun.

Central Specialties, Inc. v. Jonathan Large

18 F.4th 989 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 24, 2021

We thus find that there was no clearly established right, and we therefore conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment to Large on the basis of qualified immunity. … We have “held that an official acting outside the clearly established ‘scope of his discretionary authority is not entitled to claim qualified immunity under § 1983.’” Johnson v.

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center of Dallas v. Margulis

88 S.W.3d 641 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 31, 1999

Fain, and Kern Wildenthal, M.D., appellants, contend the trial court erred in denying their motion for partial summary judgment on the defense of qualified immunity. … Appellants moved for partial summary judgment on the section 1983 claims, asserting that Margulis did not plead with specificity enough facts to overcome their assertion of qualified immunity.

STOKES v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 2023

Qualified immunity shields government 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 … Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from liability unless the alleged conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818.

Hoffman v. Kelz

443 F. Supp. 2d 1007 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Aug 3, 2006

Finally, defendant Kelz is not entitled to qualified immunity at this time because plaintiff has alleged facts suggesting that defendant Kelz’s conduct violated plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights. … that would clearly establish his constitutional rights.

Gausvik v. Abbey

107 P.3d 98 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 23, 2005

Qualified Immunity ¶ 66 A DSHS employee cannot be held personally liable for damages under a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional *109 right. Robinson v. … After a defendant asserts the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must show a clearly established constitutional right existed that the defendant violated.

Marley v. City of Allentown

774 F. Supp. 343 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 1991

A government official asserting qualified immunity must establish that his conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … the legal rules that were ‘clearly established at the time it was taken.’”

Nance v. Sammis

586 F.3d 604 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 10, 2009

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability under § 1983 when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Oct.6, 2009) (finding case law clearly established on this constitutional right as of July 2006).

Pauly v. White

874 F.3d 1197 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 31, 2017

are entitled to qualified immunity. … But, as we explained above, Officer -White is entitled to qualified immunity because his alleged use of excessive force was not clearly established in the circumstances of this case.

Jones v. Fountain

121 F. Supp. 2d 571 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Jul 7, 2000

The court will now proceed to the qualified immunity discussion. IV. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY In his third motion for summary judgment, defendant argues Jones’ claims are barred by qualified immunity. … In assessing a qualified immunity claim the district court must determine “whether (1) the plaintiffs have asserted a constitutional or statutory violation; (2) the law regarding the alleged violation was clearly established

McKinnon v. Gardner

Connecticut Appellate Court · Apr 28, 2026

That qualified immunity “protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … “[A] claim for qualified immunity from liability Albert, 50 Conn.

Estate of Owensby v. City of Cincinnati

414 F.3d 596 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 7, 2005

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the facts alleged fail to establish a constitutional violation, then the inquiry ends and the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

Stone v. Peacock

968 F.2d 1163 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1992

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense which protects public officials acting within the scope of their discretionary authority and under clearly established law from insubstantial lawsuits. Butz v. … The jury was instructed to determine if defendants violated clearly established law.

Jones v. City of Dothan, Alabama

121 F.3d 1456 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 17, 1997

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil litigation and liability where "their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights … With regard to the excessive force claim, the magistrate judge concluded that Estress and Wright were not entitled to qualified immunity since "on February 11, 1994, the law was clearly established that use of excessive

Finch v. Rapp

38 F.4th 1234 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 5, 2022

Clearly Established Having found a constitutional violation, the district court correctly denied qualified immunity because Rapp’s action violated clearly established law. … The court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity. In Walker v.

Duffey v. Bryant

950 F. Supp. 1168 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jan 6, 1997

Previous cases clearly established that the failure of Duke and Hop-son to do so was deliberate indifference. Accordingly, they are not entitled to qualified immunity. 15 3. … For two examples of cases that found the "clearly established” requirement satisfied and denied qualified immunity without citing a previous case with similar facts, see Powell v. M.C.