Case law

Pena ex rel. Estate of Cornell v. Givens

637 F. App'x 775 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 23, 2015

Sheehan, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 1765, 1776 , 191 L.Ed.2d 856 (2015) (“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures … Qualified immunity thus attaches unless the law is clearly established that the defendant’s conduct amounted to a seizure.

Degenhardt v. Bintliff

117 F.4th 747 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 24, 2024

There is a two-part test to overcoming qualified immunity. … The question, then, is whether such right is sufficiently established to defeat qualified immunity. See Argueta, 86 F.4th at 1088. We conclude that the answer is “no.”

Upton v. Thompson

930 F.2d 1209 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 22, 1991

The district court concluded such rights were clearly established and denied the Sheriff’s motion for summary judgment. Sheriff Thompson appeals the denial of qualified immunity. II. … We conclude therefore that since the law was not clearly established in 1986 the sheriffs in these cases are protected by qualified immunity. What about 1991?

Brinson v. McKeeman

992 F. Supp. 897 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Dec 31, 1997

on the lawfulness of the defendant’s actions, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity 47 Whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law is essentially a legal question. 48 In … a Section 1983 lawsuit, the relevant inquiry is whether the legal right which the plaintiff asserts was violated was clearly established under federal law. 49 Whether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held

Lefemine v. Davis

732 F. Supp. 2d 614 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Jul 8, 2010

Qualified Immunity a. … Individual Capacity Defendants allege that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law indicating that their conduct would violate Plaintiffs constitutional rights. (Defs. Mem.

Struck v. Hackett

668 A.2d 411 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 27, 1995

“Under the qualified immunity doctrine, government officials performing discretionary functions are immune from suit in actions brought pursuant to § 1983 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … The application of the qualified immunity doctrine turns on the “objective legal reasonableness of the official’s action viewed in light of the ‘clearly established’ ” legal rules at the time the action was taken.

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

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).

McAdoo v. Texas

565 F. Supp. 2d 733 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Sep 27, 2005

“A public official performing a discretionary function enjoys qualified immunity in a civil action, provided the conduct alleged did not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “In addressing a claim of qualified immunity, a court must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, which is a purely legal question.” Id.

Lion Boulos, Individually and Doing Business as Abco Food Stores v. Richard D. Wilson

834 F.2d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 23, 1987

Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” … To rule on the claim, the court must decide whether the inspections violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” Harlow, supra, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Zeigler v. Kirschner

162 Ariz. 77 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Oct 5, 1989

Additionally, the defense of qualified immunity based on an official’s objectively reasonable reliance on clearly established law is a personal one which is entirely unavailable to him in an action against him in his official … immunities established by A.R.S. §§ 12-820.01 and 12-820.02, respectively.

Jorden Brown v. Samuel Giles

95 F.4th 436 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 5, 2024

Officer Giles argues he’s entitled to qualified immunity. To overcome that immunity, Brown must show it’s clearly established that tasing him in this particular context was excessive. See Pearson v. … Qualified immunity demands no such thing. Regardless, the relevant law is clearly established here.

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.

Tricoci v. Vidljinovic

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 13, 2025

This brings the Court to Defendants’ third argument: qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity “protects government 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

Ramirez v. Health Partners

193 Ariz. 325 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Jun 23, 1998

The Act’s qualified immunity provisions are consistent with the majority (if not unanimous) rule of other jurisdictions, the UAGA, and public policy. … . ¶ 33 Plaintiffs finally contend the Act’s qualified immunity provisions violate Arizona’s equal protection clause, Ariz.

Rodgers v. Horsley

39 F.3d 308 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 5, 1994

DISCUSSION 9 Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the federal "rights" allegedly violated were "clearly established." Barts v. … Instead, the question in this case, as in all qualified immunity cases, is fact specific: in May 1991, was it clearly established in this circuit that it was unconstitutional for a mental institution to fail to supervise

Doe v. Knox County Board of Education

918 F. Supp. 181 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Mar 6, 1996

Qualified Immunity The Board members and superintendent argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with regard to the claims against them in their individual capacities. … Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are immune from personal liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

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.

Merchant v. Bauer

677 F.3d 656 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 26, 2012

established law and therefore has no immunity"). … Accordingly, the second step in our qualified immunity analysis — whether the Fourth Amendment right was clearly established — must also be resolved in favor of Merchant.

Achterhof v. Selvaggio

757 F. Supp. 837 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Feb 27, 1991

In searching for clearly established constitutional rights for qualified immunity purposes, a district court ... must find binding precedent by the Supreme Court, its court of appeals or itself. … In an extraordinary case, it may be possible for the decisions of other courts to clearly establish a principle of law.