Case law

Bernstein v. State

411 N.J. Super. 316 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 11, 2010

[,]" and if so, "whether the right was clearly established." … In determining whether a right has been clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear so that a "reasonably competent officer" would have understood that he was violating a clearly established right.

Iris Violeta Valiente v. Hon. Ramon Luis Rivera, Etc.

966 F.2d 21 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 5, 1992

Claiming qualified immunity, defendant moved for . summary judgment. … As it was not clearly established at that time that such personnel actions, even if politically motivated, violated the constitution, defendant mayor is entitled to quali *24 fied immunity from damages liability with respect

Hopkins v. Bonvicino

573 F.3d 752 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 16, 2009

If the right is not clearly established, then the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. … Because it was also clearly established that the officers’ conduct did not fall within the emergency exception, the two defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on that basis either.

Craft v. Wipf

836 F.2d 412 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 30, 1987

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suit as long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “Whether an official may prevail in his [or her] qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘objective reasonableness of [his or her] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.’ ” Id.

B.T. ex rel. G.T. v. Davis

557 F. Supp. 2d 1262 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jul 31, 2007

When a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who must establish: (I) that the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (ii) that the constitutional right violated was clearly … up the clearly-established issue.

Patrick v. Miller

953 F.2d 1240 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 27, 1992

These clearly established principles are insufficient, however, to defeat Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on grounds of qualified immunity. … public officials lose immunity in the face of clearly established law.

TM v. Noblitt

650 So. 2d 1340 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Jan 12, 1995

We are of the opinion that the lower court correctly articulated the law of qualified public official immunity, but find that the dismissal of this cause was premature. … The issue of common law qualified immunity was recently revisited in Womble v. Singing River Hosp., 618 So.2d 1252 (Miss. 1993).

Wallace v. Jackson

667 F. Supp. 2d 1267 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 28, 2009

On the other hand, if the law was not clearly established at the time of the offense, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 807 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 ; Stewart v. … was clearly established at the time.

Gant v. Maness

786 So. 2d 401 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Jun 7, 2001

This, according to longstanding Mississippi law, is clearly insufficient to establish a duty of care owing to him in particular: when the duty imposed upon an officer is one solely to the public, the failure to perform it … Now, in developing his argument for qualified immunity, Gant asserts that his duties regarding Thompson's incarceration were discretionary and that he is, thus, entitled to qualified immunity.

John Larson v. Chad Holmes

Court of Appeals of Iowa · Nov 13, 2025

Also, “[u]nder federal law, qualified immunity is not a defense to common law claims.” Id. … Doe explicitly used negligence hypotheticals as examples of claims which lack a “right, privilege, or immunity secured by law” that “was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

LeSUEUR-RICHMOND SLATE CORP. v. FEHRER

752 F. Supp. 2d 713 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Nov 3, 2010

When evaluating a qualified immunity claim, the district court should generally first determine whether a right “would have been violated on the facts alleged; [and] ... second ... whether the right was clearly established … Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless they transgress rights that are “clearly established.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (2001).

Rhein v. Coffman

118 F. Supp. 3d 1093 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 6, 2015

Coffman also is correct that even if his post-revocation conduct violated Rhein’s due process rights, he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law. I. … clearly established law.

Dugas v. Jefferson County

931 F. Supp. 1315 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Jun 21, 1996

Underlying Policy and Principles of Analysis The doctrine of qualified immunity affords protection against individual liability for civil damages to officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The seminal qualified immunity decision, Harlow v.

Act Up!/Portland v. Bagley

971 F.2d 298 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 24, 1992

II QUALIFIED IMMUNITY We review a district court’s denial of a qualified immunity defense de novo. Baker v. Racansky, 887 F.2d 183, 185 (9th Cir.1989). … When a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity from liability for civil rights violations, the district court must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles governing the conduct in question

Amir M. Meshal v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Public Safety

117 F.4th 1273 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 16, 2024

The officers moved to dismiss the complaint on qualified-immunity grounds, arguing that Meshal failed to allege a violation of clearly established law. … The district court’s qualified-immunity ruling should be re- versed only if the existence of the affirmative defense of qualified immunity “clearly appears on the face of the complaint.”

City of Laredo v. Leal

161 S.W.3d 558 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Feb 11, 2005

Qualified Immunity Dovalina next argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for summary judgment on Leal’s substantive and procedural due process claims on the ground of qualified immunity. 3 We again agree. … “The well-established test for qualified immunity requires us to engage in a two-step inquiry.” Sanchez v. Swyden, 139 F.3d 464, 466 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 872 , 119 S.Ct. 170 , 142 L.Ed.2d 139 (1998).

Barbara Marks v. Wanda Hudson

933 F.3d 481 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 8, 2019

They also argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because the “nebulous” rights on which the plaintiffs rely are not clearly established, nor were their actions objectively unreasonable. … Ashcroft-Smith, 922 F.3d 320, 322 n.1 (5th Cir. 2019), they cannot be the source of clearly established law for qualified immunity analysis.

Sandra T.E. v. Grindle

599 F.3d 583 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 17, 2010

Grindle moved for summary judgment, claiming she was entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs had failed to estab- lish a violation of a clearly established right. … If they do, we ask whether the violated right was “clearly established” at the time of alleged violation. If so, the official is not entitled to qualified immunity from suit. See Michael C. v.

WVDHHR v. V.P.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 21, 2019

In the proceedings below and on appeal, the Guardians assert that the DHHR Petitioners are precluded from relying on qualified immunity protections because the DHHR Petitioners violated a clearly established right. … established constitutional or statutory right, and no basis for piercing the DHHR Petitioners’ qualified immunity exists.

Livingood v. Meece

477 N.W.2d 183 · North Dakota Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1991

Meece asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity under the circumstances of this case. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.