Case law

Reed v. Taylor

923 F.3d 411 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 2, 2019

The district court granted summary judgment to the officials based on qualified immunity, holding that the threat of criminal prosecution wasn't "other legal process" under clearly established law. Reed appealed. … "The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'

Rosalina Calonge v. City of San Jose

104 F.4th 39 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 7, 2024

We also conclude that the relevant law was clearly established at the time, so Officer Carboni is not entitled to qualified immunity. … CITY OF SAN JOSE immunity at the summary judgment stage because there were genuine disputes of material fact. She also argued that qualified immunity was inappropriate because the relevant law was clearly established.

James F. Robinson v. Solano County Brian Cauwells, Solano County Sheriff's Deputy Officer Gary Faulkner, Solano County Sheriff's Deputy Officer

278 F.3d 1007 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 4, 2002

established in this circuit in 1995 to override the officers’ claim of qualified immunity. … Conclusion We hold that Officers Cauwells and Faulkner were entitled to qualified immunity on the federal excessive force claim because the Fourth Amendment law gov *1017 erning their conduct was not clearly established at

Griffin v. Petrucci

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2025

Qualified immunity shields officials from liability for civil damages brought pursuant to section 1983 “so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … the right was clearly established.

Burt v. Carlson

752 F. Supp. 346 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 12, 1990

There are two kinds of immunity. One is absolute immunity, and the other is qualified or good-faith immunity. … Under qualified immunity, government officials are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Venegas v. County of Los Angeles

11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 692 · California Supreme Court · Apr 5, 2004

A rule of qualified immunity shields a public officer from an action for damages under section 1983 unless the officer has violated a “clearly established” constitutional right. (Saucier, supra, 533 U.S. at p. 201.) … The high court explained that “[i]f the law did not put the officer on notice that his- conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” (Ibid.)

David New v. Dale Denver

787 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 29, 2015

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability unless his conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known:” Harlow v. … In a § 1983 action alleging violation of that right, qualified immunity applies when “a reasonable officer could have believed [the] arrest to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the arresting

Elizabeth Roque-Rodriguez v. Hon. Jose Lema Moya

926 F.2d 103 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 27, 1991

This is clearly an error of law, since for purposes of the doctrine of qualified immunity, th[e] court had to determine whether on [sic] 1985, plaintiff had a clearly established right under the First Amendment to be promoted … and that the failure to promote her violated this clearly established right.

Jones v. United States

878 F. Supp. 1290 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Mar 7, 1995

established law with sufficient precision so as to allow the defendants to formulate a motion for summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds.” … since there are no material facts in dispute which show that Defendants’ conduct violated' clearly established law.

Garcia-Rubiera v. Flores-Galarza

516 F. Supp. 2d 180 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 30, 2007

Whether Constitutional Right was Clearly Established The second stage in the qualified immunity requires the court to ask whether the law was clearly established at the time of the constitutional violation. … Because the law was not clearly established at the time the Secretary allegedly deprived Plaintiffs of their rights guaranteed by the Takings Clause, he is entitled to qualified immunity on all of their takings claims.

District of Columbia v. Jackson

810 A.2d 388 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 14, 2002

that the officers acted beyond the reach of qualified immunity protection). … That "general proposition,” the.Supreme Court reiterated in Saucier, "is not enough” to resolve the immunity question; instead "the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been clearly established in a more

Howards v. McLaughlin

634 F.3d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 14, 2011

“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.” … In qualified immunity cases, we may look to other courts when there is no Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit precedent on point to determine if a right is "clearly established.” See, e.g., York v.

Marwan Mahajni v. Vu Do

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 13, 2026

On the immunity issues, it denied qualified immunity to Deputy Do, ruling that United States ex rel. Tobe was an anal- ogous case and clearly established that Deputy Do’s conduct violated Mr. … Deputy Woida is entitled to qualified immunity for a sec- ond reason—there’s no clearly established law that says that a bailiff who fails to stop someone else from making an im- proper statement to a juror violates a defendant

Cole v. Hunter

68 F. Supp. 3d 628 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 22, 2014

Officers Hunter and Cassidy’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based Upon Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §,1983 “from liability for civil damages … Factual Showing Having affirmed that Plaintiffs alleged a violation of a clearly established right, the Court turns now to the remaining inquiry in the qualified immunity anal *644 ysis.

Soscia Holdings, LLC v. P State of Rhode Island, et al.

2023 DNH 074 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jun 15, 2023

Qualified immunity applies where: (1) a federal right was violated, and (2) “the 21 unlawfulness of the conduct was clearly established at the time.” … Courts may begin the qualified immunity analysis by considering the clearly established prong. Id.

Angus v. Mayorkas

District Court, W.D. Texas · Apr 29, 2022

To the extent Plaintiff attempts to argue that she was more qualified than J.C., the evidence is insufficient to establish pretext because it does not show that Plaintiff clearly was more qualified than J.C. … See Price, 283 F.3d at 723 (stating that to establish pretext, the losing candidate’s qualifications must “leap from the record and cry out to all who would listen that [s]he was vastly—or even clearly—more qualified for

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.

Brown & Gay Engineering, Inc. v. Zuleima Olivares, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Pedro Olivares, Jr., & Pedro Olivares

58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 678 · Texas Supreme Court · Apr 24, 2015

Brown & Gay’s reliance on Filar-sky's qualified-immunity analysis is misplaced. … The federal 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 a reasonable

Damron v. North Dakota Commissioner of Corrections

299 F. Supp. 2d 970 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Jan 26, 2004

The Eighth Circuit has instructed: Qualified immunity shields government actors from liability in civil lawsuits when “them conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … As our cases further establish, however, the question of qualified immunity requires more than a determination that a particular right is “clearly established” in the abstract.

Zimmerman v. Doran

807 F.3d 178 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 24, 2015

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, officials are shielded from civil liability “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … We have held that “ ‘[consulting a prosecutor may not give an officer absolute immunity from being sued for false arrest, but it goes far to establish qualified immunity.