Case law

Lee v. Brown

232 N.J. 114 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 21, 2018

The panel held that they were entitled only to qualified immunity. … The TCA effectuates the Legislature's intent to establish immunity for government action as the rule and liability as the exception.

Pittman v. Nelms

87 F.3d 116 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 26, 1996

The immunity level consists of two sub-issues — whether the law governing the violation was clearly established at the time of the incident, Siegert v. … But it invokes immunity prematurely if the facts indicate no constitutional violation, clearly established or otherwise. . Like Pittman, Graham grounded his claim on multiple provisions of the Constitution.

Edward Shaw v. City of Selma

884 F.3d 1093 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 7, 2018

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Instead of clearly establishing the law against Williams, binding precedent clearly establishes it in his favor. See Singletary v.

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

Gary T. Mitchell v. Bernie C. Thompson

18 F.3d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 7, 1994

Analysis The issue here presented is one which we are all too familiar — whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity from a civil suit because the law was not clearly established at the time of his alleged … Under the prevailing precedent, unless the law is clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Alford v. Haner

333 F.3d 972 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 23, 2003

Defendants claimed they were entitled to qualified immunity and had probable cause for the arrest. … The first question under the two-part inquiry for determining whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity is whether the “law governing the official’s conduct [was] clearly established.” Act-Up!/Portland v.

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.

St. Hilaire v. City of Laconia

885 F. Supp. 349 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 31, 1995

Accordingly, an officer is entitled to claim qualified immunity in a police misconduct case even if he acted unreasonably unless the law under which the officer’s conduct is deemed unreasonable was clearly established when … Thus, neither Gutierrez nor Garner provide clearly established law applicable to the circumstances in this case.

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.

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.

Board of County Commissioners Ex Rel. Teton County Sheriff's Department v. Bassett

8 P.3d 1079 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Jul 25, 2000

prudent police officer in similar cireumstances, refused to include Ortega among those whose fault was compared, and rejected the claim of qualified immunity. … This Court held that the implied immunity defense did not apply to operational functions of the patrolmen, which do not qualify as the basic, discretionary, policy-making type of functions that the defense of qualified immunity

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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

Evans v. Gordon

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 3, 2024

, and (2) whether that right was clearly established.” … official violated clearly established federal law.).

Culver v. Armstrong

832 F.3d 1213 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 9, 2016

For our purpose, “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . … To answer the probable cause inquiry posed by the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity standard in this case, we need look no further than Wyoming Supreme Court cases construing Wyo. Stat.