Case law

Club Retro, L.L.C. v. Hilton

568 F.3d 181 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 6, 2009

“The doctrine of 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 … Id. 4 “To be ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity, ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’ ” Kinney

Leach v. New Mexico Junior College

132 N.M. 106 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 2002

Second, we determine whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct. … Defendants have therefore failed to establish their entitlement to qualified immunity.

Siggers v. Alex

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 24, 2021

Qualified Immunity The parties dispute Alex’s entitlement to qualified immunity. … Because the right was clearly established by 1984, Alex is entitled to qualified immunity only if the facts—taken in the light most favorable to Siggers—show that Alex’s conduct did not violate Brady.

Ex Parte Alabama Dept. of Youth Services

880 So. 2d 393 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Oct 10, 2003

Federal Qualified Immunity Wood argues that he is entitled to federal qualified immunity from the Doe plaintiffs' federal § 1983 claim against him. … "An official is entitled to qualified immunity if he is performing discretionary functions and his actions do `"not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Crosby v. Paulk

187 F.3d 1339 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 10, 1999

Qualified immunity protects government officials who have acted within their discretionary authority from civil trials and other litigation burdens "if their conduct violates no 'clearly established statutory or constitutional … With these guiding precepts governing entitlement to qualified immunity, we examine the circumstances under which Sheriff Paulk, Commander Winningham, Agent Griffin, and Agent Kendrick acted in view of clearly established

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Rains Independent School District

865 F. Supp. 375 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Sep 30, 1994

Under the shield of qualified immunity, White cannot be held liable unless Doe’s constitutional rights and White’s duty with respect to those rights were clearly established when the events giving rise to the instant action … Unless White’s duty under this test was clearly established at the time of the events giving rise to this lawsuit, White is entitled to the shield of qualified immunity. See Spann v.

Jones v. McNeese

883 F. Supp. 2d 897 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Jul 5, 2012

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … Qualified Immunity In resolving Dr. McNeese’s claim of qualified immunity, this court is required to essentially adopt the plaintiffs’ version of the facts, and then to resolve the abstract issue of law.

Bey v. Tennessee Department of Correction

District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Sep 28, 2020

“An answer of ‘yes’ to both questions defeats qualified immunity, while an answer of ‘no’ to either question results in a grant of qualified immunity.” Haley v. Elsmere Police Dep’t, 452 F. … Despite the factual similarities to Plaintiff’s case, the law was not clearly established under the First Amendment.

Craig v. Martin

49 F.4th 404 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 8, 2022

particular conduct violated clearly established law is Darden v. … Moreover, as we have noted before, the plaintiffs’ reliance on the cases above “requires us to assume that Fifth Circuit precedent alone can clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes, something the

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.

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.”

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

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.

Derrick Neely-Beytarik-El v. Daniel Conley

912 F.3d 989 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 2, 2019

Turning to the issue of qualified immunity, Mr. Neely-Bey asserted that it was clearly established that IDOC could not restrict his right to practice his religion ex- cept when required by penological interests. Mr. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil “liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable per- son would have known.’”

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.”

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.)

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.

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).

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).

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).