Case law

James v. Rowlands

606 F.3d 646 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 26, 2010

We conclude that, even if such rights existed, they were not clearly established. We therefore affirm the grant of qualified immunity on these two claims. … We conclude, however, that James’s right to this information was not clearly established and that the offi- cials are therefore entitled to qualified immunity on these claims.

Watkins v. Mitchem

50 So. 3d 485 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · May 7, 2010

“An official is entitled to qualified immunity if he is performing discretionary functions and his actions do ‘ “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … ’] complaint fails to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Mathis v. Bess

763 F. Supp. 58 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 14, 1991

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials sued in their personal capacities from liability for discretionary acts provided their conduct did not violate any “clearly established” federal statutory or … Benjamin, a single unpublished decision of a lower court, “clearly established” the law of this circuit for purposes of qualified immunity. See Hawkins v. Steingut, 829 F.2d 317, 321 (2d Cir.1987).

López-Ramos v. Municipality of Cataño

556 F. Supp. 2d 59 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 21, 2008

The sec ond inquiry is whether the law was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Savard, 338 F.3d at 27 . … Rather, it makes the blanket and general assertion that its officers are entitled to immunity because their conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights. 1.

Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach

341 F.3d 939 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 28, 2003

He posits a novel twist to the “clearly established” inquiry, contending that because it is not clearly established that damages may be obtained under § 1983 for an unlawful traffic stop, qualified immunity should apply. … Rather, in determining whether qualified immunity is available, those cases merely inquire whether the right at issue was clearly established in law.

George MacKie v. Katrin Rouse-Weir / George MacKie v. Robert Joss

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jan 24, 2025

Second, both legal precedent and the statutory framework of c. 123A establish that the role of qualified examiners is not only essential, but quasi judicial. … established statutory or constitutional right for the purpose of determining whether qualified immunity applied. [13] In his complaint, Mackie alleged that Joss "was hired by the [DOC] as a [qualified examiner] and assigned

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

Wertenbroch v. Hardeman

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 3, 2026

Typically, qualified immunity hinges on “whether the federal right allegedly infringed was ‘clearly established.’” Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 313 (1996) (citation omitted). … But the magistrate judge never analyzed whether Plaintiffs rights were clearly established. Nor did he affirmatively conclude that he was denying qualified immunity to Hardeman.

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.'

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

Lawrenz v. James

852 F. Supp. 986 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 6, 1994

Thus, if the applicable law was not clearly established, or if the law was clearly established and Defendant James did not violate that law in terminating Plaintiff, he is entitled to qualified immunity. … CONCLUSION Defendant James is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law in terminating Plaintiff.

Ralston v. Cannon

884 F.3d 1060 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 13, 2018

The district court denied Cannon’s request for qualified immunity. … Procedural Background Cannon filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming he was entitled to qualified immunity. 2 He asserted that to establish a violation of the Free Exercise Clause, Ralston “must show that his

Ross v. Early

899 F. Supp. 2d 415 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 25, 2012

Thus, if the right was not clearly established, for example, Officer Early would be entitled to qualified immunity without an assessment of the first prong. … Determination of a violation of constitutional rights is no longer a predicate for assessing qualified immunity; a court may first address whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation

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

William C. Powell v. Thomas J. Mikulecky, George Oates, Ruth Stephens and Wendall Gilliam

891 F.2d 1454 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 15, 1989

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.”

Estate of Bleck ex rel. Churchill v. Martinez

383 P.3d 39 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2014

’s motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. … On appeal, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the Fourth Amendment claim against Officer Martinez, concluding that he could not be found to have violated clearly established Fourth

Lojuk v. Johnson

770 F.2d 619 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 8, 1985

and qualified immunity. … Plaintiff argued in the alternative that even if defendants had not violated clearly established constitutional rights, they should be denied qualified immunity because they had violated a state administrative regulation.

Ethan James Charles v. Jeff Johnson

18 F.4th 686 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 16, 2021

To lose qualified immunity, the circumstances must show that the force was clearly excessive. See Post v. … Once we determined that the use of force was ex- cessive, the next question in the qualified immunity analysis asks whether the officer violated clearly established law.

Baptiste v. Griffin

District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 31, 2019

Therefore, a qualified immunity analysis is not necessary. … violate any clearly established right of Plaintiff.

Tommy D. Hopkins v. John L. Saunders, Kyle Vickers, Charles Ausfahl, Roy Temple, Beth M. Wheeler

93 F.3d 522 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 23, 1996

Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are generally immune from suit in performing discretionary duties if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The district court determined, however, that the right to such a hearing was clearly established by section 105.055 and thus denied the officials qualified immunity. We disagree.