Case law

Yitzchak Simon v. Tishaura Jones

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 13, 2026

Mayor Jones and Director Scoggin moved for summary judgment, invoking qualified and official immunity. … The court should then “determine if those facts demonstrate a constitutional violation that is clearly established.” Id. “[C]learly established law must be ‘particularized’ to the facts of the case . . . .” Boudoin v.

Searles v. City of Houston

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 9, 2026

However, bound by our qualified immunity precedent, we affirm the district court on the basis that there is no clearly established law. I. … In particular, plaintiffs “must rebut the [qualified immunity] defense by establishing a genuine fact issue as to whether the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.”

Foley v. Univ of Houston Sys

355 F.3d 333 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 18, 2003

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … However, the test for qualified immunity is whether the Appellees have asserted the deprivation of a statutory right under clearly established law.

Hoffer v. Ancel

176 Vt. 630 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Apr 28, 2004

Applying the doctrine of qualified immunity, the trial court granted defendants summary judgment. … Finally, plaintiff argues that qualified immunity does not apply to plaintiffs declaratory judgment claim. See Allen v.

Whittier v. Kobayashi

581 F.3d 1304 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 31, 2009

DISCUSSION “Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional … “To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must satisfy a two prong test; he must show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

(PC) Bobadilla v. Knight

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 20, 2020

established law and is entitled to qualified immunity. 3 C. … has established a violation of his First Amendment rights, 20 defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff’s alleged free speech rights were not 21 clearly established at the time of the May 21, 2017

Rich v. Montpelier Supervisory District

167 Vt. 415 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jan 23, 1998

He misunderstands the role of the objective standard in qualified immunity analysis. … , on the basis of nothing more than the official’s pretextual assertions, that the allegedly unconstitutional conduct contravened no clearly established law.’”

Jones v. Clark

630 F.3d 677 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 14, 2011

- eral right at issue was clearly established at the time that the alleged violation occurred. … III As we mentioned, Officers Clark and Kaminski are entitled to immunity if their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a rea- sonable person would have known.

Ard v. Rushing

911 F. Supp. 2d 425 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Aug 30, 2012

’s action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … Thus, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff shows “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly

Mason v. Arizona

260 F. Supp. 2d 807 · District Court, D. Arizona · Mar 28, 2003

In Harlow , the Supreme Court established the test for qualified immunity: whether the official violated “clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Qualified immunity seeks to balance these two competing interests by protecting public officials from personal liability as long as they do not violate clearly established federal law.

Buchanan v. Metz

132 F. Supp. 3d 922 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 14, 2015

violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009).

Mitchell B. Tucker v. Jack Callahan Carl Glasgow Ben Brewer City of New Johnsonville (88- 5102/5179) Wilburn Springer, Officer, (88-5103/5153)

867 F.2d 909 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 28, 1989

at least at the pleading stage, the defense of qualified immunity. … Thus, the district court concluded that Officer Springer was not entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff had alleged facts which, if proven, would establish that defendants had violated plaintiffs “clearly established

Troy Rokusek v. Cody Jansen

899 F.3d 544 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 8, 2018

To overcome Trooper Jansen’s claim of qualified immunity, Rokusek must show the violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Gilmore v. … We now turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity test: whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Gilmore v. Bostic

659 F. Supp. 2d 755 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 22, 2009

in a prison’s sex offender treatment program is not clearly established. … immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known.

Braswell v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

369 F. Supp. 2d 1371 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Apr 26, 2005

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or con *1377 stitutional rights of which a reasonable … This, however, does not end the inquiry with respect to the Defendants’ claim of qualified immunity. The doctrine of qualified immunity originated in Harlow v.

Hubbard v. Board of Education

19 Kan. App. 2d 853 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Jun 24, 1994

In this case, the defendants argue they were entitled to qualified immunity. … The district court correctly held the Board had not violated a clearly established law and was entitled to qualified immunity for its actions.

Nunez Gonzalez v. Vazquez Garced

389 F. Supp. 2d 214 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 8, 2005

Qualified Immunity Defendants further argue that the doctrine of qualified immunity bars all monetary claims against them. … The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable person

Strathie v. Department of Transportation of Pennsylvania

547 F. Supp. 1367 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1982

Thus, under Wood , the immunity defense would be unavailable to defendants if the constitutional rights allegedly infringed by them were clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct, if they knew or should have … that their actions would violate clearly established constitutional rights.

Ford v. Baltimore City Sheriff's Office

149 Md. App. 107 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 27, 2002

The standards for establishing a prima facie case of negligence have been clearly established. The Court of Appeals stated in Bobo v. … Clearly, the Court would not have had to instruct the circuit court to make a qualified immunity determination absent a malice finding if no immunity existed for State constitutional torts. See Lee v.

Octavio Delgado v. Police Chief Arthur Jones and Deputy Chief Monica Ray

282 F.3d 511 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 2, 2002

Moreover, in the context of a qualified immunity defense, “The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of a clearly established constitutional right.” Donovan, 17 F.3d at 951 -52 (citing Rakovich v. … After establishing that the plaintiff has adequately alleged a violation of a constitutional right, the second level of inquiry in a qualified immunity analysis involves whether the law was “clearly established” at the time