Case law

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.)

Gene Flinn v. Elaine Gordon, Dexter Lehtinen

775 F.2d 1551 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 15, 1985

Once this is established, the official is immune from liability unless the plaintiff can “prove that the defendant’s actions violated clearly established constitutional law.” Id. … Since Flinn cannot show the loss of any federal right, much less the loss of a “clearly established” right, he has failed to overcome Gordon’s qualified immunity.

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.

Bailey v. Iles

87 F.4th 275 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 21, 2023

However, “[a] qualified immunity defense alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof” because the plaintiff, to overcome qualified immunity, “must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine [dispute of material … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity “if there is no violation, or if the conduct did not violate law clearly established at the time.” Id.

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.

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).

Giebel v. Sylvester

244 F.3d 1182 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 12, 2001

was not clearly established at the time of Sylvester’s actions. … not entitled to qualified immunity.

Pauly Ex Rel. Estate of Pauly v. White

814 F.3d 1060 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 9, 2016

They all argued they were entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff estate could not show Samuel’s claimed Fourth Amendment rights were clearly established or violated, and in any event their actions were objectively … “When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established

Lucas v. Parish of Jefferson

999 F. Supp. 839 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Mar 31, 1998

Qualified immunity protects an official from liability unless the official violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Reynolds violated the Lucases clearly established rights in moving to revoke their probation.

T.R. v. Lamar County Board of Education, The

25 F.4th 877 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 4, 2022

“A right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes in one of three ways: (1) case law with indistin- guishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional right; (2) a broad statement of principle within … Since the Defendants’ actions violated a clearly established constitutional right, we conclude that the Defendants are not enti- tled to qualified immunity.

Johnson v. Boreani

946 F.2d 67 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 26, 1991

Government officials who are sued for damages under § 1983 for their performance of discretionary functions are entitled to a qualified immunity defense if they prove that their conduct “does not violate clearly established … Because in most cases it is easier for a § 1983 defendant to establish qualified immunity than to defend against the alleged constitutional violation, and because our remand had expressly left the qualified immunity issue

Wesby v. District of Columbia

841 F. Supp. 2d 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 18, 2012

When determining whether a given constitutional right was “clearly established” for the purposes of establishing qualified immunity, “we look to cases from the Supreme Court and [the United States Court of Appeals … However, “[i]f the law was clearly established, the [qualified] immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.”

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.

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.

CYBER ZONE E-CAFE, INC. v. King

782 F. Supp. 2d 1331 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 22, 2011

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Because the law was not clearly established in April 2010 that the Plaintiffs’ arrest and seizure was unlawful, Defendant King is entitled to qualified immunity, and all claims against him in his individual capacity shall

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.

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

Michael Charles Ward v. Dennis Dyke Fred Christians Robert J. Mayer Sherry Burt, Dan Bolden Donald Houseworth Robert Brown, Jr. David Haskell, Warden

58 F.3d 271 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 29, 1995

Defendants contend that Ward has failed to allege the violation of a clearly established right. … Therefore, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 4 IV. For the reasons set forth above, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. 1 .

Baggerly v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

370 S.C. 362 · Supreme Court of South Carolina · Aug 28, 2006

Causation-in-fact is proved by establishing the injury would not have occurred “but for” the defendant’s negligence, and legal cause is proved by establishing foreseeability. Id. … or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify.”

Wilson v. Kittoe

229 F. Supp. 2d 520 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Nov 7, 2002

Clearly Established The Fourth Amendment right to be free from arrest in the absence of probable cause is clearly established. See Henderson, 223 F.3d at 273 . … But, “if the test of ‘clearly established law' were to be applied at this level of generality, ... plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity ... into a rule of virtually unqualified liability.”