Case law

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cameron County v. Alvarado

900 S.W.2d 874 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Jun 22, 1995

We address the trial court’s denial of summary judgment of the deputies’ qualified immunity defense and the County’s sovereign immunity defense based on the deputies’ qualified immunity claim. … "Qualified immunity” is one of several interchangeable terms (including “quasi-judicial immunity," "discretionary immunity,” "official immunity,” and "good faith immunity”) used to refer to an affirmative defense available

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 .

Bledsoe v. Willis

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 27, 2023

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity “if there is no violation, or if the conduct did not violate law clearly established at the time.” Id. … Nov. 16, 2022) (rejecting the qualified immunity defense regarding clearly established law for § 1983 malicious prosecution claims); Crider v. Williams, No. 21-13797, 2022 WL 3867541, at *8 (11th Cir.

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

Roska v. Sneddon

311 F. Supp. 2d 1307 · District Court, D. Utah · Mar 26, 2004

At the same time, however, “where the right is clearly established, a defendant should only ‘rarely’ be able to succeed with a qualified immunity defense.” … was “clearly established.”

Frederick Jackson v. City of Madison

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 28, 2026

We reiterate that to defeat qualified immunity, a plaintiff must point us to law that is established clearly enough “that every reasonable official would interpret it to establish the particular rule the plaintiff seeks to … Officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless “(1) they violated a federal stat- utory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

Barbara Marks v. Wanda Hudson

933 F.3d 481 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 8, 2019

They also argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because the “nebulous” rights on which the plaintiffs rely are not clearly established, nor were their actions objectively unreasonable. … Ashcroft-Smith, 922 F.3d 320, 322 n.1 (5th Cir. 2019), they cannot be the source of clearly established law for qualified immunity analysis.

Gregory Samples v. Harris County

900 F.3d 655 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 17, 2018

Our legal inquiry into the availability of qualified immunity fits into a two-step framework. … marshal caselaw asserting to resolve the question of clearly established law.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 7, 1993

The court framed the qualified immunity issue as being "whether minor school children suspected of being victims of child abuse had, [at the relevant time] a clearly established right to be free from questioning and visual … The court found no such clearly established right, and found, therefore that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and were therefore not liable.

Raspardo v. Carlone

770 F.3d 97 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 6, 2014

[and] [t]he second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was clearly established at the time of the violation.” … established rights,” precluding a grant of qualified immunity. 85 F.3d at 67 .

Williams v. Heard

533 F. Supp. 1153 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 8, 1982

With respect to the second prong, the reasonableness requirement, the court stated that qualified immunity defense is not available where the constitutional right infringed by defendants was clearly established at the time … Applying this to the facts of the case, the Fifth Circuit held that the lower court’s finding of qualified immunity was clearly erroneous because the defendant’s actions were not reasonable.