Case law

Broderick Fourte v. Faulkner County, Arkansas

746 F.3d 384 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 25, 2014

“To determine whether [officials] are entitled to qualified immunity, we consider (1) whether the facts alleged, construed in the light most favorable to [to the plaintiff], establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory … Stewart and Nurse Lumpkin’s qualified immunity defense. See White v. McKinley, 519 F.3d 806, 815 (8th Cir. 2008).

Khorrami v. Rolince

539 F.3d 782 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 27, 2008

Qualified immunity is the right to be free at the earliest point at which the court can be sure that the government official's conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that any reasonable … In an interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity, the first question is "whether or not certain given facts showed a violation of `clearly established law.'"

Gallegos v. City & County of Denver

984 F.2d 358 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 20, 1993

that the defendant’s alleged actions violated clearly established law. … As stated above, government officials are entitled to a grant of qualified immunity unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

McKay v. City of Hayward

949 F. Supp. 2d 971 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 11, 2013

In the absence of clearly established law, Officers Cox, Purnell, and Miller are entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim. … Parks, 383 F.3d 1058, 1071 (9th Cir.2004) (denying qualified immunity to officers who failed to intervene where law clearly established use of force was excessive).

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.)

Terrence Hammock v. Gail Watts

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 23, 2025

Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity if Hammock alleged a deprivation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of Defendants’ alleged conduct. … One would be hard-pressed to find a more clearly established constitutional violation than the one before us here.

Shechter v. Comptroller of New York

79 F.3d 265 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 21, 1996

It is not enough that defendants-appellants were “government officials” to establish qualified immunity. … Accordingly, defendants-appellants’ pleading is insufficient to establish their qualified immunity defense.

Engle v. Townsley

49 F.3d 1321 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 7, 1995

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … A reasonable official would have known that firing Engle in such circumstances would violate her clearly established first amendment rights.

Corcoran v. Fletcher

160 F. Supp. 2d 1085 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 26, 2001

Determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity, then, “requires a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established? … Clearly Established Law “[W]hether the law was clearly established ... is a pure question of law for the court to decide.” Mendoza v. Block, 27 F.3d 1357, 1360 (9th Cir.1994).

Moss v. U.S. Secret Service

572 F.3d 962 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 16, 2009

The R & R concluded that, with respect to the individual Agents, Plaintiffs had pleaded a violation of clearly established First Amendment law. … But even assuming that orders deferring a ruling on qualified immunity are immediately appealable in some circumstances, those circumstances are clearly-not present here.

Trevor Davis v. Christopher Allen

112 F.4th 487 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 14, 2024

The 3 Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the un- lawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time … Whether Deputy Allen Violated Clearly Established Law Depends on Disputed Facts The parties’ disputed facts are also inextricably bound up with the question of whether Deputy Allen violated clearly established

Biggs ex rel. Biggs v. Legrand

706 F. App'x 820 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 30, 2017

A plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity must show that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct. … Whether a right was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity is a question of law. Good v. Curtis, 601 F.3d 393, 400-01 (5th Cir. 2010).

Henderson v. Baird

29 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 14, 1994

They are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … The magistrate judge went on to deny qualified immunity on the substantive due process claim because the law was clearly established "that substantive due process required that at least some evidence was needed to support

James v. Bryant, Jr. v. United States Treasury Department, Secret Service, and Jeff Jordan Brian v. Hunter

903 F.2d 717 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 18, 1990

Racansky, 887 F.2d 183 (9th Cir.1989) (reversing district court’s denial of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, finding that alleged conduct did not violate clearly established law), Merriman v. … 5 We conclude that the law was not clearly established.

Mangual v. Toledo

536 F. Supp. 2d 127 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 15, 2008

Qualiñed Immunity Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Public officials are therefore entitled to qualified immunity unless the facts establish that their conduct violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time of the violation such that a reasonable

Morales v. City of North Las Vegas

272 F. Supp. 3d 1216 · District Court, D. Nevada · Jul 26, 2017

Qualified immunity protects law enforcement officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … This argument, without more, would likely fail the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry because of the "longstanding principle that clearly established law should not be defined at a high level of generality ...

S.L. Ex Rel. Lenderman v. St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department Board of Police Commissioners

725 F.3d 843 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 5, 2013

State officials enjoy qualified immunity from a § 1983 action if their conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Harris is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , but

Phillips v. Thomas

555 So. 2d 81 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jul 21, 1989

Thus, we move to the question of whether the appellees are entitled to qualified or substantive immunity. III. Substantive Immunity. … This evidence clearly establishes the fact that Thomas's alleged negligence arose out of the performance of a ministerial act, and, therefore, that Thomas is not entitled to qualified immunity from suit.

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.

Martinez v. Harper

14 Brief Times Rptr. 1486 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Nov 8, 1990

In sum, once a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff assumes the burden of showing that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would … If the plaintiff fails to meet the burden of showing how the defendant violated a clearly established right, the motion for summary judgment must be granted.