Case law

Sullivan v. United States Postal Service

944 F. Supp. 191 · District Court, W.D. New York · Nov 5, 1996

Qualified Immunity Defense It is clear that summary judgment must be granted as to Brown on the basis of qualified immunity. … Even when such rights are clearly established, qualified immunity also protects a government official if it is objectively reasonable for [the official] to believe that his acts did not violate those rights.” Russell v.

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

Wilkerson v. University of North Texas ex rel. Board of Regents

223 F. Supp. 3d 592 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Nov 30, 2016

Qualified and Official Immunity Defendants assert qualified and official immunity with regard to all of Plaintiffs claims against the Individual Defendants. … Seitz, the Sixth Circuit held that an engagement was not a clearly established right that could overcome qualified immunity. 38 F.3d 264, 275-76 (6th Cir. 1984).

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.

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.

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.’”).

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.

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.

Sargent v Town of Hudson

2017 DNH 210 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Sep 27, 2017

This argument is a nonstarter, however, as the Supreme Court has made clear that in order to defeat qualified immunity, the clearly established right must be the federal right on which the claim for relief is based. … Whereas qualified immunity analysis typically focuses on whether the underlying right was clearly established during the relevant period, see, e.g., Belsito Commc’ns, Inc. v.

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.

Louise Arnold v. Charles McClinton

112 F.4th 598 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 14, 2024

“In a § 1983 action, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless: (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established.” Ching ex rel. Jordan v. … In these circumstances, we conclude that Deputy McClinton is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct in this case did not violate McDaniel’s clearly established rights. See Plumhoff v.

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.

Baltas v. Chapdelaine

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 3, 2025

DISCUSSION Plaintiffs argue that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated clearly established law. … Our caselaw does not clearly establish that a few hours without a flushing toilet violates the Eighth Amendment, so we affirm the grant of qualified immunity as to these claims. C.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.