Case law

Avery v. Davis

700 F. App'x 949 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 6, 2017

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … But “broad general proposition[s]” like that one are not enough to clearly establish the law; instead, the “question is whether the violative nature of particular *953 conduct [was] clearly established.” Mullenix v.

Morinville v. Old Colony Cooperative Bank

579 F. Supp. 1498 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Feb 10, 1984

conduct not previously identified as unlawful____ 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. … the rule could be deemed to not have been clearly established.

Archer v. Chisholm

191 F. Supp. 3d 932 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · May 26, 2016

She is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the plaintiff plausibly pleads that she violated a constitutional right, and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Qualified immunity—validity of warrant Turning to qualified immunity, again, to overcome qualified immunity the plaintiff must plausibly allege that the defendants violated a constitutional right, and that the right was clearly

McVey v. Stacy

157 F.3d 271 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 10, 1998

right and, if so, whether the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time the defendant acted. … violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Delores Escobar, Individually, as Representative of the Estate of Luis Manuel Escobar, and as Next Friend of Luis Alberto Escobar, a Minor v. Harris County, Texas and Eric Goodney

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Jul 31, 2014

Clearly established law and qualified immunity After Deputy Goodney raised the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, the burden of persuasion fell on Escobar to negate the defense. … If he did, then the clearly established law permits the use of deadly force. If he didn’t, then the clearly established law prohibits it.

Thomas L. Feathers Kathleen Feathers v. William Aey J.P. Donohue, City of Akron

319 F.3d 843 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 13, 2003

The district court refused to grant the officers qualified immunity, ruling that the officers violated Thomas Feathers’s (“Feathers”) clearly established rights to *846 be free from an unreasonable seizure and to be free … Federal appellate courts have jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals concerning “the legal question of qualified immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law.” Mattox v.

George E. Apostol v. Eliot Landau, Mark Gallion, and Chris Haloulos

957 F.2d 339 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 8, 1992

precluded from asserting the qualified immunity defense. … We first examine whether as a matter of law officers Gallion and Haloulos are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct during the search of Apostol’s office violated clearly established rights.

Mercado-Gracia v. United States

District Court, D. New Mexico · May 14, 2024

Petitioner therefore asks the Court to dismiss the firearm charge as unproven as a matter of established federal law. Pet at 5-7. … Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 390 (2000) (“It is past question that the rule set forth in Strickland qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.’”).

Rosenfeld v. Clark

586 F. Supp. 1332 · District Court, D. Vermont · May 11, 1984

We are aware of no clearly established due process rights which required the Board to act more quickly than it did, no decision which clearly states that a sixty day or even a ninety day appeal process in a situation such … Where there has been no violation of a clearly established right, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and plaintiffs claim for damages must be dismissed.

Brown v. Thompson

868 F. Supp. 326 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Oct 17, 1994

established for purposes of qualified immunity: The clearly established law is that set forth in the discussion above. … This clearly establishes that the Magistrate did not adequately address the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry. Brown’s deliberate indifference claim rests on three points.

Browne v. County of Tehama

213 Cal. App. 4th 704 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 6, 2013

such intention is made clearly to appear either by express declaration or by necessary implication.’ … The Ordinance is clearly not a ban. 11 Simply put, the Ordinance does not prohibit the cultivation of medical marijuana by qualified patients.

Brandon v. Lotter

976 F. Supp. 872 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Sep 2, 1997

did not violate clearly established law. … This being the case, Laux did not violate clearly established law when he failed to immediately arrest Lotter and Nissen or take some other related action, and he is entitled to qualified immunity as a result.

DiLoreto v. Borough of Oaklyn

744 F. Supp. 610 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 21, 1990

clearly established right). … As was noted in the discussion of qualified immunity, it was clearly established that a search will be considered a violation of the fourth amendment if it is unreasonable. Bell v.

Goodman v. Town of Golden Beach

988 F. Supp. 1450 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 8, 1997

of that clearly-established law. … Goodman was unnecessary and excessive, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless it was clearly established that the amount of force used was unlawful.

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.

Jimenez v. County of Los Angeles

29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 553 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 2, 2005

were entitled to qualified immunity. … Government employees generally are shielded by qualified immunity “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Jones v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

971 F. Supp. 2d 648 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Oct 3, 2013

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Thus, in evaluating a claim of qualified immunity, courts consider (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged

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).

Atwater v. Tucker

343 Ga. App. 301 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Oct 24, 2017

The test for determining whether a defendant is protected from suit by the doctrine of qualified immunity is the objective reasonableness of the defendant's conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law[; in … App. 165 , 167 (1), 480 S.E.2d 217 (1996) (citation and punctuation omitted). *306 For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such

Brad Livingston, Robert Treon, Martha Wear and Paul Morales v. Atiba Ramone Taylor, Tdcj 1082601

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Aug 6, 2009

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY5 Qualified immunity shields a government official “performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages under section 1983, provided the official’s conduct does not violate clearly … evidence which establishes that the official’s conduct violated the clearly established law.