Case law

Electric Fetus Co. v. City of Duluth

547 N.W.2d 448 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · May 14, 1996

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before commencement of discovery. Mitchell v.

Robert LOMBARDI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF EL CAJON; Steven Shakowski; Does 1 Through 30, Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees

117 F.3d 1117 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 30, 1997

In civil rights actions, qualified immunity turns on the objective unreasonableness of the law enforcement officer’s conduct in light of clearly established law. … Harlow’s emphasis on ‘objective reasonableness’ and cases in which the ‘clearly established law3 at issue contains a subjective element, such as motive or intent.”

Debbie Latits v. Lowell Phillips

878 F.3d 541 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 27, 2017

Whether that Right was Clearly Established Even if Officer Phillips violated Latits’s constitutional right, he is entitled to qualified immunity if that right was not clearly established at the time of the violation—June … Thus, this case fails to satisfy the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity doctrine. III.

Donovan v. Briggs

250 F. Supp. 2d 242 · District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 26, 2003

Qualified immunity shields public officials “from civil damages liability insofar as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,’ Harlow … was not clearly established in the context of the actions giving rise to the suit); Warlick v.

Wilkins v. City of Tulsa

33 F.4th 1265 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 3, 2022

The officers invoked qualified immunity, arguing they did not violate Mr. Wilkins’s Fourth Amendment rights and that his rights were not clearly established. … Wilkins’s clearly established right to be free from the additional use of force after he was effectively subdued. The officers were not entitled to qualified immunity.

Tortes v. King County

84 P.3d 252 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 22, 2003

These individual public officials are immune from personal liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … It is preferred that a defendant's entitlement to qualified immunity be decided as a matter of law on summary judgment. [19] The central purpose of qualified immunity is to protect public officials from interference with

Trevis Caldwell v. Warden, FCI Talladega

748 F.3d 1090 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 7, 2014

And, for the first time in this case, the defendants asserted that they were entitled to qualified immunity on the alternative ground that the law did not “clearly establish” that their actions were unconstitutional. … CLEARLY ESTABLISHED LAW The only remaining issue relevant to the defendants’ qualified immunity defense is whether, by September 9, 2009, preexisting law clearly established that the defendants’ conduct violated

Baltas v. Chapdelaine

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 3, 2025

DISCUSSION Plaintiffs argue that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated clearly established law. … Our caselaw does not clearly establish that a few hours without a flushing toilet violates the Eighth Amendment, so we affirm the grant of qualified immunity as to these claims. C.

Cucuta v. New York City

25 F. Supp. 3d 400 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 3, 2014

(see cases cited at page 414 above), defendants alternatively are entitled to the protection of qualified immunity because the law is not clearly established and their actions were objectively reasonable. … The Officers are Entitled to Quali-fíed Immunity for the Ping of Cucuta’s Cell Phone Defendants also are entitled to qualified immunity for the pinging of Cueuta’s cell phone because the law is not clearly established and

Brockway v. Shepherd

942 F. Supp. 1012 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 1996

III.QUALIFIED IMMUNITY A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a claim of a violation of a constitutional right if the right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation and the contours of … WMe the abstract right to be free from unreasonable seizure clearly is established, for qualified immunity purposes the right must be considered on a more specific level: “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently

Carlson v. County of Hennepin

428 N.W.2d 453 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Aug 23, 1988

A subsequent motion to dismiss the individual defendants on the basis of qualified immunity was granted. … is no qualified immunity.

Janice Brown v. Andrew Knapp

75 F.4th 638 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 28, 2023

The district court denied both motions, finding that the MSP Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because they had collectively violated Brown’s clearly established right to a prompt probable cause determination … We found that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because, even if he had violated Roberson’s constitutional rights, “Riverside and its progeny [did] not clearly establish that an officer in [the trooper’s] position

Monique Wilkerson v. Thedious Seymour

736 F.3d 974 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 30, 2013

DISCUSSION “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials acting within their discretionary authority are immune from suit unless the official’s conduct violates clearly established federal statutory … To avoid summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, the plaintiff’s allegations, supported by admissible evidence, must demonstrate both (1) a constitutional violation and (2) that the violation was clearly established

Harris County v. Michael J. Hall

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Jan 22, 2026

Governmental Immunity and Plea to the Jurisdiction Governmental units are immune from suit unless immunity is clearly and unambiguously waived by state law. City of San Antonio v. … Hall failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination because he could not establish that at the time of his termination he was qualified for the job.

Teri Dean v. Anne Precythe

79 F.4th 986 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 23, 2023

The availability of qualified immunity depends on the answer to two questions. First, did Precythe violate a constitutional right? Second, was the right clearly established? See Morgan v. … Audrain County, 968 F.3d 845, 849 (8th Cir. 2020) (explaining that the plaintiff “has the burden to show that” the law is clearly established).

Swint v. City of Wadley

5 F.3d 1435 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 3, 1993

However, these factual disputes do not preclude a grant of summary judgment premised on a defendant’s qualified immunity if the legal norms allegedly violated were not clearly established at the time' of the challenged actions … Because such a due process right was not clearly established at the time of the raids in this case, Sheriff Morgan, Chief Morgan and Officer Dendinger are entitled to qualified immunity on the due process claims.

Dickey v. United States of America

174 F. Supp. 3d 366 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2016

However, qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability where their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Defendants argue that “the true test for qualified immunity in this case was whether it was clearly established that Officer Alexander was prohibited from alleged touching or manipulating

Harry A. Bendiburg, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Carl Bendiburg, Deceased v. Pamela S. Dempsey

19 F.3d 557 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 21, 1994

The court did not use the term “qualified immunity,” nor did it suggest that the law was not clearly established. Furthermore, the court submitted a special interrogatory to the jury. … The law, as established by the Anderson case in the Supreme Court, is that qualified immunity — inquiry for the qualified immunity is whether the objective, albeit, fact-specific question, whether a reasonable official could

Robert Kennedy v. City of Cincinnati

595 F.3d 327 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 16, 2010

Page 7 Kennedy failed to show that his clearly established rights were violated. … alleged by the plaintiff constitute a violation of clearly established law.”).

Soto v. Bautista

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 24, 2023

Clearly Established Law We now turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry. … Notwithstanding the prior analysis, Zuniga and Bautista are still “entitled to qualified immunity unless” Soto demonstrated that the right in question was “clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”