Case law

Front Royal & Warren County Industrial Park Corp. v. Town of Front Royal

708 F. Supp. 1477 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 16, 1989

litigation and, at the same time, they can be held liable for the violation of a clearly established constitutionally-protected right. … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which the official knows or reasonably should be aware.”

Jerome Berry v. Robb Sherman Roger Rutledge Susan Embree James J. Burgess Richard Fongemie, Sgt.

365 F.3d 631 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 22, 2004

However, when an official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known, qualified immunity does not prevent suit by the injured party. … The more critical inquiry for qualified-immunity purposes is whether it was “objectively legally reasonable” for the prison officials to believe that his conduct did not violate the inmate’s clearly established Eighth Amendment

Smith v. Deering

880 F. Supp. 816 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Dec 20, 1994

Defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity which requires the Court to determine whether Defendants violated clearly established Constitutional law. 1. … The test for qualified immunity is “whether a reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.” Anderson v.

Dean Birkeland v. John Jorgenson

971 F.3d 787 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 20, 2020

and killed him–our precedent compels the conclusion that the officers’ use of deadly force in this situation was not a violation of a clearly established right. … established right.”

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.)

Doe v. Beard

63 F. Supp. 3d 1159 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 18, 2014

In the alternative, if there was a constitutional violation, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit because the right was not clearly established. (Id. at 14.) 1. … Qualified Immunity Defendants assert qualified immunity as a defense.

Arkansas State Medical Board v. Byers

521 S.W.3d 459 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 8, 2017

To stave off summary judgment on qualified immunity, a civil-rights plaintiff must assert a constitutional violation, demonstrate that the constitutional right is clearly established, and raise a genuine issue of fact … as to whether the official would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right.

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.

Chavez v. County of Bernalillo

3 F. Supp. 3d 936 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jan 31, 2014

established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualifíed Immunity Analysis.

Maraziti v. First Interstate Bank Of California

953 F.2d 520 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 3, 1992

II 5 A federal official's assertion of qualified immunity based upon the plaintiff's failure to state a "violation of clearly established law" is a question of law. Mitchell v. … established for qualified immunity purposes."

Huerta v. Hillsborough County

720 So. 2d 276 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 23, 1998

The parties agree that a government official, such as Bean, is entitled to qualified immunity from civil suit in the performance of discretionary functions when the official's conduct does not violate any clearly established … The trial court, in applying this principle of law, opined that Huerta's constitutional rights were not clearly established at the time of his termination and ruled that Bean was entitled to qualified immunity.

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).

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.

Patton v. Wood County Humane Society

154 Ohio App. 3d 670 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2003

immunity from suit in a Section 1983 action so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … of clearly established law and the information that he possessed.

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.