Case law

Buchanan v. Ford

638 F. Supp. 168 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 19, 1986

If an official establishes “the objective reasonableness of [his] conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law,” he can have summary judgment. Id. … Plaintiff has not cited a different “clearly established” legal standard by which to evaluate defendant’s conduct.

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

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.

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

Biggs ex rel. Biggs v. Legrand

706 F. App'x 820 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 30, 2017

A plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity must show that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct. … Whether a right was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity is a question of law. Good v. Curtis, 601 F.3d 393, 400-01 (5th Cir. 2010).

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

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.

Welch v. Daniels

District Court, D. Nevada · Jun 23, 2025

immunity test; and (3) the 11 R&R conducted the “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity analysis at 12 too high a level of generality. … was clearly established to satisfy the qualified immunity analysis’ second 3 prong.

Khorrami v. Rolince

539 F.3d 782 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 27, 2008

Qualified immunity is the right to be free at the earliest point at which the court can be sure that the government official's conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that any reasonable … In an interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity, the first question is "whether or not certain given facts showed a violation of `clearly established law.'"

Ronald Mitchell v. Justin Schlabach

864 F.3d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 3, 2017

Second, was the right, clearly established at the time of the violation?” Id. Government officials are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity unless the answer to both questions is yes. See id. *421 A. … at the time he acted. 3 We hold that they were not, The Supreme Court very recently reminded the lower courts that an officer’s actions are against “clearly established” law for purposes of qualified immunity only when “

Henderson v. Baird

29 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 14, 1994

They are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … The magistrate judge went on to deny qualified immunity on the substantive due process claim because the law was clearly established "that substantive due process required that at least some evidence was needed to support

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

Hill ex rel. Estate of Loggins v. Carroll County

467 F. Supp. 2d 696 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Dec 28, 2006

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity is ‘an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.’ … If not, “the officer is entitled to qualified *701 immunity, and we need not consider whether the asserted right was ‘clearly established.’ ” Chavez v.

Miguel Reynaga Hernandez v. Derrek Skinner

969 F.3d 930 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 10, 2020

Holder, 673 F.3d 1029, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011)), the court held that Reynaga’s Fourth Amendment rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged offense, and denied both Hernandez and Skinner qualified immunity, id … The second prong in the qualified-immunity analysis is whether the constitutional right in question was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (1994).

McGaughey v. City of Chicago

690 F. Supp. 707 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 27, 1988

clearly established at the time of the incident. … The case law under which defendants are to be tested as to whether they had probable cause to arrest McGaughey for disorderly conduct under the facts of this case was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Green v. Tudor

685 F. Supp. 2d 678 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jan 29, 2010

The second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is whether the right was “clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … Williams, 320 Fed.Appx. 678, 679 (9th Cir.2009) (defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on prisoner’s RLUIPA and Free Exercise Clause Claims because he did not have a clearly established right to halal meals); see

Monica Voss v. Gregory Goode

954 F.3d 234 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 24, 2020

“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.’” … Goode is therefore entitled to qualified immunity unless it was clearly established that no probable cause existed to arrest Voss for interference with public duties or any other crime at the time of arrest.

Cody Jones v. City of Elyria, Ohio

947 F.3d 905 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 17, 2020

Standard Of Review For Qualified Immunity. Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil liability for official acts that do not violate clearly established constitutional rights. Walker v. … As this collection of rights is clearly established, the two officers are not entitled to qualified immunity for the wrongful-arrest claim. b. Mitchell.

Saiger v. City of Chicago

37 F. Supp. 3d 979 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 19, 2014

Qualified immunity requires a court to assess ‘the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v. … City of Chicago, 242 F.3d 737 , 742 (7th Cir.2001) (“qualified immunity is dissolved ... when the conduct is so egregious that no reasonable person could have believed that it would not violate clearly established rights.

Leibson v. Ohio Department of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities

84 Ohio App. 3d 751 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1992

Qualified immunity shields government officials under the objective standard which tests whether their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.