Case law

Jones v. Stine

843 F. Supp. 1186 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Feb 10, 1994

They are shielded by qualified immunity. … Because the asserted right was found not to have been clearly established, the Gawloski court held the defendants were protected by qualified immunity.

Thomas v. Durastanti

607 F.3d 655 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 4, 2010

Far from showing that Agent Durastanti violated clearly established law, Ryder suggests that Agent Durastanti’s actions comported with clearly established law. … Moreover, we have explained that even if the video does not conclusively establish the speed of the Lincoln, qualified immunity is warranted. Given Mr.

Charles McManemy v. Bruce Tierney

970 F.3d 1034 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 17, 2020

In an appeal from a summary-judgment ruling on qualified immunity, we typically credit the plaintiff’s version of the facts. See id. at 378. … See Blazek, 761 F.3d at 925 (holding that jerking a non-resisting suspect from the floor to his bed after he was handcuffed and posed no threat violated clearly established law); Krout, 583 F.3d at 566 (“It was clearly established

Hutchins v. Peterson

139 F. Supp. 2d 575 · District Court, D. Vermont · Mar 14, 2001

Qualified immunity as to federal claims Movants’ second argument, that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Hutchins’ rights were not clearly established, is similarly without merit. 11 “The doctrine of qualified … “Without a doubt, the right not to be arrested without probable cause is clearly established” for purposes of the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Rodriguez v. Phillips

66 F.3d 470 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 15, 1995

Moreover, defendants' actions at that time must have been objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established federal law; otherwise, those actors are entitled to qualified immunity. … Summary judgment is particularly appropriate when the qualified immunity defense is based on a showing that an asserted right was not clearly established since the inquiry as to whether a right was or was not clearly established

In Re City of Philadelphia Litigation

158 F.3d 711 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 9, 1998

We disagree with both contentions. 33 It is axiomatic that the qualified immunity inquiry focuses on whether an official's conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … were clearly established at the time of the official's conduct.

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.

Hunter v. Illinois Department of Corrections

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 28, 2023

Meeks is not entitled to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. … clearly established at the time of the defendant’s misconduct).

Deavers v. Vasquez

57 F. Supp. 3d 599 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Nov 5, 2014

DISCUSSION “Qualified immunity protects government officials who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry v. … Greene, 593 F.3d 348, 358 (4th Cir.2010). *607 “The Supreme Court has cautioned against interpreting clearly established law too generally for féar of allowing plaintiffs ‘to convert the rule of qualified immunity ... into

Fortner v. Thomas

983 F.2d 1024 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 18, 1993

clearly established law.” … It is well established that the doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages liability as long as the officials could reasonably believe that their conduct did not violate clearly established

Brownsville Public Utility Board v. Encarnacion Gamez, Federico Flores, Jesus Galvan, and Ramon Garcia

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Nov 6, 2025

Applicable Law BPUB is an entity created by the City of Brownsville, and as a political subdivision of the State, is generally immune from suit unless immunity has been clearly and unambiguously waived by the legislature … The “TCHRA ‘clearly and unambiguously waives immunity’ for claims against governmental entities like [BPUB].” United Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Mayers, 665 S.W.3d 775, 781 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2023, no pet.)

Michaels v. New Jersey

50 F. Supp. 2d 353 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 26, 1999

Once a defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, it is the plaintiffs burden to delineate the constitutional right that was violated and show that it was clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue. … Parenthetically, in a qualified immunity analysis, defining the constitutional right at issue is critical in assessing whether or not that right was clearly established.

People Ex Rel. Feuer v. Progressive Horizon, Inc.

248 Cal. App. 4th 533 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 2016

Proposition D bans medical marijuana businesses, but grants certain qualifying businesses a limited immunity from enforcement of the ordinance. … As set forth in the Declarations attached to these moving papers, Progressive has resolved the LiveScan issue and now fully qualifies for limited immunity.

Bistrian v. Levi

299 F. Supp. 3d 686 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2018

established. 107 The failure of either prong will result in the official being entitled to qualified immunity. 108 Here, Plaintiff has not shown that he had a clearly established right to be removed from the SHU within the … was clearly established.

Amezquita v. Garcia-Cortez

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 3, 2024

No. 32 at 26-27. 12 The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability 13 for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 14 … U.S. at 194); Henry A., 678 F.3d at 1000 (qualified immunity analysis 11 requiring (1) determining the contours of the clearly established right at the time of the 12 challenged conduct and (2) examining whether a

DiStiso ex rel. DiStiso v. Cook

691 F.3d 226 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 21, 2012

The Qualified Immunity Defense Qualified immunity shields “government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … immunity because no such rule of law was clearly established at times relevant to plaintiffs claim.

Sean Smith v. Peter Gilchrist, III

749 F.3d 302 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 14, 2014

(explaining that to survive a qualified-immunity claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate the “violation . . . of a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known” (internal … Kennedy, 349 F.3d 731, 742 n.6 (4th Cir. 2003) (holding that when officers violated rights that were clearly established, officers were not entitled to public officers’ immunity from North

McCloud v. Testa

97 F.3d 1536 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 21, 1996

We also conclude that this proposition is clearly established. … We recognize that our citation to unpublished cases, especially in the qualified immunity context, where the key inquiry is whether a principle of law is clearly established, may be perceived as problematic.

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).

Somers v. Thurman

109 F.3d 614 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 25, 1997

To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, we conduct a two-part analysis: (1) We consider whether the law governing the official’s conduct was clearly established. … Therefore, an official is denied qualified immunity only if the law was clearly established and a reasonable official could not have believed the conduct was lawful.