Case law

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

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.

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.”

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.

United States v. Allebach

526 F.3d 385 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 21, 2008

Motion to Suppress Allebach moved to suppress the fruits of the search of his residence, arguing that the trash contents were insufficient to establish probable cause. … We find the district court did not clearly err in determining Allebach’s possession of crack cocaine was part of the same course of conduct as his possession with intent to manufacture crack cocaine.

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.

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.

Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper

320 P.3d 830 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Mar 19, 2012

Qualified immunity is based upon a conception that "where [a public] official's duties legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated, the public interest may be better served by action … Federal qualified immunity is therefore immunity from suit, rather than merely a defense to liability. Id.

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.

Zaher Zahrey v. Martin E. Coffey

221 F.3d 342 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 20, 2000

not clearly established in 1996. … Anderson instructs, however, that for a right to be clearly established for purposes of a qualified immunity defense, the precise conduct at issue need not previously have been ruled unlawful.

Flores v. City of Palacios

270 F. Supp. 2d 865 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 30, 2003

The Court first determines whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. If not, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … Because Flores has alleged violations of clearly established law, the Court moves to the next step in the qualified immunity analysis: judging the reasonableness of the alleged behavior. See Hayter, 154 F.3d at 274 .

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach

329 F.3d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 19, 2003

He posits a novel twist to the “clearly established” inquiry, contending that because it is not clearly established that damages may be obtained under § 1983 for an unlawful traffic stop, qualified immunity should apply. … Rather, in determining whether qualified immunity is available, those cases merely inquire whether the right at issue was clearly established in law.

Robert J. Alfonso v. Dr. John C. Lund

783 F.2d 958 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 10, 1986

The finding on competency of the doctor to testify was one for determination by the court, Fed.R.Evid. 104(a); this finding should not be reversed unless it was clearly erroneous. See United States v. … Defendants argued that the proof was defective because the medical evidence failed to establish that defendants’ negligence was the cause of death.