Case law

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.

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.

Thomas v. Durastanti

607 F.3d 655 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 4, 2010

Far from showing that Agent Durastanti violated clearly established law, Ryder suggests that Agent Durastanti’s actions comported with clearly established law. … Moreover, we have explained that even if the video does not conclusively establish the speed of the Lincoln, qualified immunity is warranted. Given Mr.

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.

Friedland v. Fauver

6 F. Supp. 2d 292 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 1998

Qualified Immunity ' Defendants contend that summary judgment should be entered in their favor based on qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established constitutional right of Friedland. … “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.

Norman Knight v. Mark J. Mills, Etc.

836 F.2d 659 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 29, 1987

Before the district court, Mills argued that he was immune from damages due to qualified immunity. … it may be that the particular action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Holdridge v. Blank

255 F. Supp. 3d 1088 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 1, 2017

Qualified Immunity Officer Blank asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. See, e.g., ECF No. 78 at 10. … The qualified immunity doctrine “shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights-of

Fletcher v. Burkhalter

605 F.3d 1091 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 24, 2010

was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … Clearly Established Law Deputy Burkhalter entitles a section of his opening brief, “A Reasonable Person in Defendant’s Position Would Not Have Recognized That Deputy Burkhalter’s Actions Violated a Clearly Established

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.

Mckinney v. Dekalb County

997 F.2d 1440 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1993

Baldwin County Bd. of Educ., 908 F.2d 1499 , 1509 (11th Cir.1990). 6 The issue on this appeal of a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is a purely legal one: first, whether there was a clearly established … a claim of violation of clearly established law.

Jackson v. Texas Southern University

997 F. Supp. 2d 613 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 3, 2014

“The ‘clearly established’ standard does not mean that official’s conduct is protected by qualified immunity unless ‘the very action in question has previously been held unlawful.’ ” Kinney v. … The officer is “entitled to qualified immunity if his or her conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time of his or her actions,” even if the conduct violated the

Chiu v. Plano Independent School District

339 F.3d 273 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 16, 2003

However, the qualified immunity doctrine only protects officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Objective Reasonableness Although Davis and Criswell violated Kirke and Johnson’s clearly established rights, they are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if they can show that their actions were objectively

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).

Rodriguez v. Phillips

66 F.3d 470 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 15, 1995

Moreover, defendants' actions at that time must have been objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established federal law; otherwise, those actors are entitled to qualified immunity. … Summary judgment is particularly appropriate when the qualified immunity defense is based on a showing that an asserted right was not clearly established since the inquiry as to whether a right was or was not clearly established

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.’”).

Walentas v. Lipper

662 F. Supp. 902 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 17, 1987

Discussion Qualified Immunity of Government Officials Harlow v. … The answer is that it certainly was not clearly established.

B.T. ex rel. G.T. v. Davis

557 F. Supp. 2d 1262 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jul 31, 2007

When a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who must establish: (I) that the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (ii) that the constitutional right violated was clearly … up the clearly-established issue.

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.

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.

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.