Case law

Raby v. Baptist Medical Center

21 F. Supp. 2d 1341 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 9, 1998

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 … Therefore, Mangum’s actions violated clearly established Eleventh Circuit precedent.

Toby J. Sutton v. Patricia Bailey

702 F.3d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 3, 2012

Appellants are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Qualified immunity “depends upon the objective reasonableness of [the alleged misconduct] as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Schleck, 939 F.2d at 641(quotations omitted).

Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 3, 2026

in question . . . was clearly established.” … were clearly established.

Bakutis v. Dean

129 F.4th 299 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 25, 2025

But ultimately, qualified immunity was preserved because it was not clearly established whether the use of force was reasonable in response to a call claiming a child could be physically ill. … A panel of this court found that the officers violated the Constitution but granted qualified immunity because the violation was not clearly established. Linicomn, 902 F.3d at 537, 539–40.

Holdridge v. Blank

255 F. Supp. 3d 1088 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 1, 2017

Qualified Immunity Officer Blank asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. See, e.g., ECF No. 78 at 10. … The qualified immunity doctrine “shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights-of

Domenech v. City of New York

927 F. Supp. 106 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 15, 1996

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials are immune from liability for civil damages if they establish either that (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person … Where reasonably competent officials could disagree as to whether the conduct at issue would violate clearly established rights, the immunity defense is available. Malley v.

Yitzchak Simon v. Tishaura Jones

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 13, 2026

Mayor Jones and Director Scoggin moved for summary judgment, invoking qualified and official immunity. … The court should then “determine if those facts demonstrate a constitutional violation that is clearly established.” Id. “[C]learly established law must be ‘particularized’ to the facts of the case . . . .” Boudoin v.

Harris County, Texas G. Young D. Gehring and J. Cavitt v. Shirley Nagel, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Joel Don Casey

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Aug 25, 2011

Identification of the clearly established law is not a question of fact to be established by evidence. … This would not be qualified immunity, but absolute immunity.

Kaufhold v. Bright

835 F. Supp. 294 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Sep 30, 1993

Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for money damages when their challenged conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known … To analyze a claim of qualified immunity, a court should: (1) identify the specific constitutional right implicated; (2) determine that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation; and (3) consider

Octavio Delgado v. Police Chief Arthur Jones and Deputy Chief Monica Ray

282 F.3d 511 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 2, 2002

Moreover, in the context of a qualified immunity defense, “The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of a clearly established constitutional right.” Donovan, 17 F.3d at 951 -52 (citing Rakovich v. … After establishing that the plaintiff has adequately alleged a violation of a constitutional right, the second level of inquiry in a qualified immunity analysis involves whether the law was “clearly established” at the time

Robert J. Pelletier v. Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, and John W. Behrens

968 F.2d 865 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 29, 1992

in creating the qualified immunity doctrine. … On review of a denial of qualified immunity, “[w]e have jurisdiction only to decide if defendant’s conduct violated ... clearly established constitutional rights.” Todd v.

AerSale, Inc. v. The City of Roswell, New Mexico

District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 25, 2024

However, this is precisely the “high level of generality” at which “clearly established” may not be defined for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis. … Christopher is entitled to qualified immunity on AerSale’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims based on the absence of clearly established law, it necessarily follows that he is also entitled to qualified immunity on

Duckett v. City of Cedar Park, Texas

950 F.2d 272 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 10, 1992

The Supreme Court held that the first inquiry in the examination of a defendant's claim of qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff "allege[d] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right." … . § 1983 , holding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because defendants "could not reasonably be charged with knowledge that they might be violating a clearly established right of the Plaintiff."

Braswell v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

369 F. Supp. 2d 1371 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Apr 26, 2005

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or con *1377 stitutional rights of which a reasonable … This, however, does not end the inquiry with respect to the Defendants’ claim of qualified immunity. The doctrine of qualified immunity originated in Harlow v.

Chapman v. Nichols

989 F.2d 393 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 23, 1993

issue is not unconstitutional and that he is entitled to qualified immunity in any event because the law was not clearly established. 3 Plaintiffs respond that the policy is unconstitutional, that the law was clearly established … Two of the five cases held, as we do here, that the qualified immunity defense must fail in light of clearly established law. See Weber, 804 F.2d at 803-04 ; Jones, 770 F.2d at 742 n. 4.

Stovall v. McAtee

35 F. Supp. 2d 1125 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 24, 1997

In denying defendant’s qualified immunity motion, the district court concluded that Thomas v. Pate had clearly established the right at issue. This reliance was misplaced. As noted above, Thomas v. … When a defense of qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of showing that the right he invokes was “clearly established” at the relevant time with sufficient specificity under the circumstances.

Sonnino v. University of Kansas Hospital Authority

221 F.R.D. 661 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 22, 2004

Under these circumstances, the Court cannot conclude that its decision to overrule the Individual Hospital Defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity was clearly erroneous or that it resulted in manifest injustice to any … Conclusion With the exception of the Court’s ruling on whether the Hospital Defendants’ qualified immunity objections were substantially justified, the Hospital Defendants fail to show how the Court’s rulings were clearly

Harris v. Mack

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 20, 2023

Purnell, 652 F.3d 524, 531 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their … a constitutional right and (2) ‘whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.’ ”).

Pittman v. Nelms

87 F.3d 116 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 26, 1996

The immunity level consists of two sub-issues — whether the law governing the violation was clearly established at the time of the incident, Siegert v. … But it invokes immunity prematurely if the facts indicate no constitutional violation, clearly established or otherwise. . Like Pittman, Graham grounded his claim on multiple provisions of the Constitution.

Alvarez Sepulveda v. Colon Matos

247 F. Supp. 2d 76 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 24, 2003

“[S]tate officials exercising discretionary authority are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not transgress clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights of which a reasonably prudent … “[S]tate officials exercising discretionary authority are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not transgress clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights of which a reasonably prudent