Case law

Potts v. Holt

13 F. Supp. 3d 445 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 2014

The following discussion underscores why it would be impermissible for us to conclude that the relevant law was clearly established in anything like a manner that would vitiate a qualified immunity defense. … of the qualified immunity analysis.

Lassiter v. Alabama A & M University, Board of Trustees

3 F.3d 1482 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 7, 1993

Since the contract was ambiguous, the court reasoned, it was not clearly established that the contract created a property interest. This decision reflects a misunderstanding of qualified immunity. … Because the law was clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine cannot shield the individual capacity defendants from suit.

Ammons v. Washington Department of Social & Health Services

648 F.3d 1020 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 17, 2011

In reviewing the denial of qualified immunity, we consider the “purely legal issue of whether facts alleged by the plaintiff support a claim of violation of clearly established law” such that appellants are not immune from … This conclusion, at least, serves as clearly established law.

Roska v. Peterson

328 F.3d 1230 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 29, 2003

Id. at 341 , 106 S.Ct. 1092 . 67 At the same time, where the right is clearly established, a defendant should only "rarely" be able to succeed with a qualified immunity defense. 27 V-1 Oil Co. v. … Amendment principle was "clearly established."

Martínez-Rodríguez v. Guevara

597 F.3d 414 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 1, 2010

First, they assume that Defendants are protected by qualified immunity rather than absolute immunity. … The qualified immunity doctrine protects federal and state officials from civil liability in the performance of "discretionary functions . . . insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Smith v. Crockett

District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 3, 2023

Wang’s conclusion that an inmate’s First Amendment right to a diet conforming to his sincerely held religious beliefs was clearly established since at least 2002; in other words, it is clearly established Tenth Circuit … City of Las Cruces, 584 F.3d 888, 895–902 (10th Cir. 2009) (qualified immunity unavailable at summary judgment where the plaintiff’s version of the facts, if believed, would constitute a violation of a clearly established

Mlodzinski Ex Rel. J.M. v. Lewis

648 F.3d 24 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 2, 2011

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, police officers are protected “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The qualified immunity question before us is whether a reasonably competent officer could have thought, even mistakenly, that in light of the clearly established law at the time, it was reasonable to keep plaintiffs in handcuffs

Grendell v. Gillway

974 F. Supp. 46 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 11, 1997

immunity and, consequently, the question of whether this right was clearly established at the time Gillway acted. … qualified immunity.

Henry Lyons v. F. Wayne Vaught

781 F.3d 958 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 24, 2015

We have jurisdiction over the denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, including “whether a particular complaint sufficiently alleges a clearly established violation of law.” Ashcroft v. … established’ for purposes of the . . . qualified immunity standard.”

Buxton v. Nolte

473 F. Supp. 2d 802 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 12, 2007

Since the facts do not give rise to a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Officer Nolte is entitled to qualified immunity on the arrest without probable cause claim. b. … Officer Nolte is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violated a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Pratt Ex Rel. Estate of Pratt v. Harris County

822 F.3d 174 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 3, 2016

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ … “In order to overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must allege a violation of a constitutional right, and then must show that ‘the right was clearly established ... in light of the specific context of the case

Stokes v. Gann

498 F.3d 483 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 29, 2007

“Qualified” or “good faith” immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability “unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … objectively unreasonable in the light of the clearly established law at the time of the incident.

Jones v. United States of America

934 F. Supp. 2d 284 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2013

Qualified Immunity Officer Kadiev asserts the defense of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” Hunter v. … 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 reasonable person would have

Jared Fishman v. DC

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 11, 2026

The district court denied the officers qualified immunity, ruling that clearly established law required the officers to release Fishman before they did. … For qualified-immunity purposes, the question is whether the officers’ actions were so manifestly unreasonable as to violate clearly established Fourth Amendment principles.

McColley v. County of Rensselaer

740 F.3d 817 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 21, 2014

Such a denial of qualified immunity is reviewed by this Court to determine whether “the qualified immunity defense may be established as a matter of law.” Escalera v. … . it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his action did not violate clearly established law.”

Joseph Rome v. Eugene Burden, Michel Cabello, Angela Phillips, and Sareta Davis

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Oct 31, 2002

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense. We need only reach this issue if there is a clearly established statutory or constitutional right violated. Rome has not alleged any violation of a statutory right. … Furthermore, as Rome did not establish the predicate constitutional violation, we need not reach the issue of qualified immunity.

Davis v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 512

335 F. Supp. 3d 1230 · District Court, D. Kansas · Aug 15, 2018

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because at the time of the alleged violation, the law did not clearly establish that reassigning plaintiff to teach at SMW constituted adverse … To defeat the qualified immunity defense, plaintiff must show that on the facts of this case, the law clearly established that the reassigning her to teach at SMW constituted adverse employment action.

Omni Behavioral Health v. Steve Miller

285 F.3d 646 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 21, 2002

But, public officials are entitled to qualified immunity and shielded from liability when their conduct does not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … immunity test and prove that such a right was clearly established.

Fabiano v. City of Palos Hills

336 Ill. App. 3d 635 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 25, 2002

Qualified Immunity Defendants further argue that they enjoy qualified immunity from section 1983 liability because, even if they in fact lacked probable cause to prosecute Sandra Fabiano, they reasonably believed that they … “But if a reasonable officer would not have believed that the person had committed a crime, then the officer, whatever he did or did not believe, is acting contrary to clearly established law and therefore has no immunity

Daniel v. City of Colorado Springs

327 P.3d 891 · Supreme Court of Colorado · May 19, 2014

While a vehicle is not absolutely necessary to play golf, a parking lot next to a golf course clearly promotes golfing. … City & Cnty. of Denver, 13 P.3d 794, 799 (Colo.2000) (taking the allegations in the complaint as true for the purposes of determining whether the injured party established that a public entity waived immunity under the CGIA