Case law

Franceski v. Plaquemines Parish School Board

602 F. Supp. 691 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Feb 7, 1985

rights must show that these rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue, in order to overcome a defendant official’s qualified immunity. … Plaintiff has failed to assert a clearly established right which was violated. In this regard, the instant case is indistinguishable from Davis v. Scherer, supra, which is dispositive on the issue of qualified immunity.

Rustgi v. Board of County Commissioners of County of Weld, Colorado

District Court, D. Colorado · Apr 29, 2021

Because Rustgi possessed a clearly established constitutional right and has alleged a constitutional violation by Sheriff Reams, dismissal is inappropriate on qualified immunity grounds. See Keith v. … was clearly established.

Goodman v. Harris County

571 F.3d 388 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 10, 2009

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials acting within their discretionary authority from liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law of which … As previously noted, the defense of qualified immunity is a two-step inquiry: the allegation that a “clearly established constitutional right” was violated and the determination that “the official’s conduct was objectively

Blount-Yeye

District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 12, 2025

Plaintiff can show qualified immunity is not appropriate by establishing “(1) the defendants violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … “Generally speaking, it is proper to grant a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds when the complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Corbitt v.

Lauren Graham v. C. Gagnon

831 F.3d 176 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 27, 2016

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The shield of qualified immunity is lost when a government official (1) violates a constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established. See, e.g., Merchant, 677 F.3d at 661.

Buckheit v. Dennis

713 F. Supp. 2d 910 · District Court, N.D. California · May 18, 2010

Standard Governing Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, even if a constitutional violation occurred, governmental officials are immune if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory … Where a plaintiff asserts a Fourth Amendment violation based on the absence of probable cause, the relevant inquiry with respect to the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis is “whether a ‘reasonable

Lue v. Moore

43 F.3d 1203 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 29, 1994

Qualified immunity shields the defendants from liability unless they violated Lue’s clearly established rights under the Act and reasonably should have known they were doing so. See id. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 . … Lue thus has not raised a genuine issue of material fact about whether the defendants violated his clearly established rights, and the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity.

Barbara Bays v. Montmorency Cty., Mich.

874 F.3d 264 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 20, 2017

Because a triable issue of fact remains over whether Sigler violated Shane’s clearly established Fourteenth Amendment right to sufficient treatment for a serious medical problem, we affirm the district court’s qualified- … In a qualified-immunity case, we ask two questions: Did the officer violate the injured party’s constitutional rights? If so, was the right clearly established at the time? Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009).

Anthony v. Vaccaro

43 F. Supp. 2d 843 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 16, 1999

Gilley, 957 F.2d 1347, 1348 (6th Cir.1992). of Government officials are generally entitled to qualified immunity when performing discretionary functions as long as the conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory … In order to assert a violation of a “clearly established” right and defeat a qualified immunity defense, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is

Shields v. Shetler

682 F. Supp. 1172 · District Court, D. Colorado · Mar 29, 1988

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity “government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … When the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of convincing the court that his constitutional or statutory rights were clearly established at the time of the questioned conduct

Lambert v. Town of Stringtown

63 O.B.A.J. 2132 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 14, 1992

They sought summary judgment based on the defense of qualified immunity. The trial court overruled their motion and the defendants appealed. … The qualified immunity doctrine may be stated thus: “[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Lopez v. Robinson

914 F.2d 486 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 17, 1990

the qualified immunity inquiry. … The prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity from this claim.

Nelson v. Correctional Medical Services

583 F.3d 522 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 2, 2009

immunity, arguing their actions did not violate any of Nelson’s clearly established constitutional rights. … Qualified immunity may protect government officials from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , but not if their conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Ethel Jones v. Gary Collins, Superintendent of Texarkana Independent School District

132 F.3d 1048 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 12, 1998

First, if the official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional'right, the official is entitled to qualified immunity. See Nerren v. Livingston Police Dep't, 86 F.3d 469, 473 (5th Cir.1996). … Second, even if the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable.

Erin Lincoln v. City of Colleyville, Texas

887 F.3d 190 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 5, 2018

“[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time. … It follows that these officers—Meeks, Scott, and Barnes—similarly were not bound by any such clearly established law. The district court correctly granted these officers qualified immunity.

Wright v. Rolette County

417 F.3d 879 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 8, 2005

If the answer is no, we grant qualified immunity. If the answer is yes, we go on to determine "whether the right was clearly established." Id. … I write separately in regards to section III.D.2 of the opinion, which discusses the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity inquiry.

Lawlor v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2019

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243 (2009) (holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity where they “did not violate clearly established law”). … to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ Wiretap Act claim.

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

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