Case law

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.

Schlicher v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners

Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 6, 2006

The Supreme Court has explained the concept of a "clearly established" constitutional right in the context of a qualified immunity claim as follows: " '[C]learly established' for purposes of qualified immunity means … Because "it is well established that the qualified immunity doctrine does not apply to official capacity claims" (Ruffino v.

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.

Brown v. Benefield

757 F. Supp. 2d 1165 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 29, 2010

The Eleventh Circuit recognizes three ways that a right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes: (1) case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishes the constitutional right, (2) a broad statement … If this is not clearly established, then the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the case.

Marlowe v. LeBlanc

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 10, 2022

The first question is (a) whether Stewart violated a clearly established right. … See, e.g., Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011) (explaining qualified immunity applies “unless,” among other things, the defendant violated a “right [that] was clearly established at the time of the challenged

Bruce Patrick Samsara v. Sergeant Dale Squires, in His Official Capacity and Individually, and Sergeant Mark Kukuzke, in His Official Capacity and Individually, and City of Fairfield, and Fairfield Police Department

Court of Appeals of Iowa · Feb 10, 2016

Qualified immunity operates to immunize police officers from liability where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” and in … Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 206.

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

Phillips v. Hust

588 F.3d 652 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 2, 2009

Second, assuming a constitutional violation, is Hust nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because the relevant constitutional right was not “clearly established” at the time she acted? … Rather, we proceed directly to ask whether Hust is entitled to qualified immunity. C A state officer is not protected by qualified immunity where he or she has violated a clearly established constitutional right.

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

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.

Young v. Martin

172 F. Supp. 2d 919 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 25, 2001

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, such an official will not be found personally liable for money damages unless the official’s actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … right was clearly established.

Shehee v. Luttrell

199 F.3d 295 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 1, 1999

immunity, finding that the law regarding Shehee’s First Amendment and Fifth Amendment claims was clearly established. … of clearly established law.”

Durrant v. BD. OF EDUC. OF CITY OF HARTFORD

284 Conn. 91 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Oct 2, 2007

pursuant to section 10-16n [which allows the establishment of grant programs to assist local boards of education establishing extended day Head Start programs]”). … “[A] municipal employee . . . has a qualified immunity in the performance of a governmental duty, but he may be liable if he misperforms a ministerial act ... .

Flick v. Larue

608 F. Supp. 1281 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · May 20, 1985

established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would be aware, that official can defeat a constitutional tort claim by interposing the qualified immunity defense. … unless the constitutional right he was alleged to have violated was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.”

Smith v. City of Madison

364 F. Supp. 3d 656 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Oct 23, 2018

The Mayor is Entitled to Qualified Immunity "The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials 'from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Accordingly, a government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the plaintiff's evidence is sufficient to show a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right at issue was "clearly established" at

Howze v. Virginia Polytechnic

901 F. Supp. 1091 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jul 12, 1995

Government officials exercising discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity if the officer’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … For qualified immunity purposes, however, the record is sufficient to hold that, even if the speech is ultimately decided to be protected, that right was not clearly established in 1992 and 1993.

Cheyenne Johnson v. Mount Pleasant Pub. Schs.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 30, 2025

So, unless Johnson has stated a legally viable claim of a violation of a clearly established right, with supporting precedent, Russell is entitled to qualified immunity. … He did not raise a “clearly established” argument at all, nor did he argue any aspect of qualified immunity based on X.M.’s facts.

Hoglan v. Robinson

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Sep 30, 2022

Thus, they are also entitled to qualified immunity. … Thus, government officials “are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the