Case law

Troy Lee Douthit v. Clarence Jones, Sheriff, Dallas County, Texas, and W. H. McCallum

619 F.2d 527 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 20, 1980

The Qualified Immunity Defense. … Thus the immunity defense is not available to officials if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have known of that right

Gardner v. Evans

811 F.3d 843 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 2016

In determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, we consider two questions: First, did the defendant violate a constitutional right? And second, were the contours of that right clearly established? … notice requirement was clearly established.

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.

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.

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."

Roberts v. Lipson

231 Ga. 142 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Sep 6, 1973

from taxation or regulation should not be interpreted as including that immunity.” … It is well established in this state that exemptions from taxation must be strictly construed, "and the exemption will not be held to be conferred unless the terms under which it is granted clearly and distinctly show that

Hopkins v. O'CONNOR

282 Conn. 821 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Jul 3, 2007

Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, supra, 272 Conn. 790 (noting that distinction between qualified immunity and absolute immunity is that persons protected by latter immunity are not hable for malicious “conduct and statements … Ed. 2d 288 (1967) (police officer sued for false arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 has only qualified immunity).

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

A.M. ex rel. Youngers v. New Mexico Department of Health

148 F. Supp. 3d 1232 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 7, 2015

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis. … with the prior case law and granted qualified immunity for lack of clearly established law.

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.

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

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.

Levi Wilson v. Scott Lamp

901 F.3d 981 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 28, 2018

They agree that this court may review the denial of qualified immunity if the issue “is a purely legal one: whether the facts alleged . . . support a claim of violation of clearly established law.” See Pace v. … Government actors have qualified immunity as a shield against litigation if their actions do not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

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

Tomashek v. Raleigh Cnty. Emergency Operating Ctr.

344 F. Supp. 3d 869 · United States District Court · Sep 26, 2018

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, "[g]overnmental officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for money damages so long 'as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … As such, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the violation of a constitutional right, and Meadows and Johnson are entitled to qualified immunity. The court need not address whether the right was clearly established.

Gutierrez v. Municipal Court of the Southeast Judicial District

838 F.2d 1031 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 27, 1988

Clearly Established in General In Harlow v. … The Court then set forth its “clearly established” test.

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.”

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.

Judge v. Shikellamy School District

135 F. Supp. 3d 284 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2015

In determining whether a constitutional right was clearly established, a broad and generalized, declaration that a clearly established federal right was violated is insufficient. See Anderson v. … Put another way, for the purposes of the qualified immunity analysis, a right is considered clearly established if “it would be clear to a reasonable officer, that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.”

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