Case law

Michael McIntyre and Laura McIntyre, Individually and on Behalf of Their Children, K.M., L.M., C.M., M.M., and L.M. v. El Paso Independent School District, Dr. Lorenzo Garcia, and Mark Mendoza

59 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1387 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 24, 2016

Here, the McIntyres challenge only the officer’s “entitlement to qualified immunity on the substantive due process claim,” arguing he violated their clearly established rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by “swear[ing] … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “courts may not award damages against a government official in his personal .capacity unless ‘the official violated a statutory or constitutional right,’ and ‘the right was “clearly

Ray Scott v. Tobias J. Tempelmeyer

867 F.3d 1067 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 16, 2017

Tempelmeyer appeals the denial of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields a government official from suit when his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

McGowan v. United States

825 F.3d 118 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 7, 2016

The issue of qualified immunity was presented in the district court, has been fully briefed on appeal, and turns on *124 the purely legal question of whether McGowan alleged a violation of a clearly established right. … Thus, in light of the absence of authority clearly establishing the claimed right, we are constrained to hold that Rivers is entitled to qualified immunity from McGowan’s Bivens claim.

Duckett v. City of Cedar Park

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 *277 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.”

Saffell v. Crews

183 F.3d 655 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 6, 1999

That clearly established right must be one established in a particularized sense. This requires more than a general violation of the Fourth Amendment. … In the present case, Crews is entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable officer could have rationally believed that the strip search was not unlawful in light of clearly established law and the information she possessed

Cuvo v. Pocono Mountain School District

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … A qualified immunity determination involves a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether a constitutional or federal right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was “clearly established.” Saucier v.

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.

France v. Hunter

368 S.W.3d 279 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 2012

from suit under the doctrines of qualified immunity, official immunity, and judicial immunity. … Public officials are provided qualified immunity for their official acts unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘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.

Haney v. Monsky Ex Rel. Zager

311 S.W.3d 235 · Kentucky Supreme Court · May 7, 2010

Qualified Official Immunity As this Court thoroughly explained in Yanero v. … Qualified official immunity applies only where the act performed by the official or employee is one that is discretionary in nature. Id.

Higgins v. Town of Concord

246 F. Supp. 3d 502 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2017

The Court cannot determine whether Hodges and Whelan are entitled to qualified immunity at this stage. The defendants argue ' that Hodges and Whelan are entitled to qualified immunity on Counts One and Two. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) ("The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar ‘as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Benavides v. Nunez

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 16, 2025

Qualified immunity shields an officer from liability if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. … To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

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).

Prentzel v. State, Department of Public Safety

169 P.3d 573 · Alaska Supreme Court · Sep 14, 2007

Under federal law governing constitutional claims brought under § 1988, "a law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established law and the information available to the officer at … To defeat the troopers' claim of qualified immunity, Prentzel must instead show that the troopers' warrantless arrest amounted to a violation of the Fourth Amendment under clearly established federal law governing that amendment's

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

Seal Tite Corp. v. Bressi

312 N.J. Super. 532 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 19, 1998

could be afforded on the basis of qualified, rather than absolute, privilege or immunity. … The individual defendants are entitled at least to the protection of qualified immunity, even if the absolute immunity afforded for legislative acts is deemed inapplicable.

Andrea Martinez v. Ronnet Sasse

37 F.4th 506 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 16, 2022

Sasse moved for judgment on the pleadings based on qualified immunity. … Accordingly, Sasse is entitled to qualified immunity.

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

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.

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.