Case law

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jul 13, 2006

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an individual is immune from suit if he undertook the actions complained of in good faith in the performance of his duties and the acts do not violate any clearly established constitutional … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not apply where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Id. ; Robinson v.

Jonathan Turmon v. Charles Jordan, Individually, and Red Roof Inns, Incorporated

405 F.3d 202 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 25, 2005

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers performing discretionary duties “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Because Jordan violated Turmoris Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures and because that right was clearly established on March 10, 2001, Jordan is not entitled to qualified immunity on the illegal seizure

Nurre v. Whitehead

520 F. Supp. 2d 1222 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 20, 2007

Whitehead to qualified immunity as an individual defendant, for the record, the Court also grants defendant’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity for the separate reason that it was not clearly established that … Similarly, the Court concludes that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs Establishment Clause claim because the Court has been unable to find authority clearly establishing that defendant was acting with

Adams v. Thompson

560 F. Supp. 894 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Apr 14, 1983

Qualified immunity now depends on the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law, not upon malice or other subjective factors. Harlow v. … Since it is clear that qualified or “good faith” immunity is an affirmative defense, Gomez v.

Brown v. Grabowski

922 F.2d 1097 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 29, 1991

Anderson's strict elaboration of Harlow, establishing that an official is entitled to summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity, unless the right that the official is alleged to have violated is both clearly established … established constitutional duty and that he was entitled to qualified immunity.

Cardenas-Ornelas v. Johnson

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 29, 2026

JOHNSON 3 meaningful opportunities for recreation was clearly established. … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages” when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Johnson v. Myers

129 F.4th 1189 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 3, 2025

It was clearly established law that a fatal shooting under these circumstances violated the Fourth Amendment. … Clearly Established Right Appellants insist that, even if Officers Myers and Beecroft violated Smith’s constitutional right to be free from the use of excessive force, that right was not clearly established in the circumstances

Parker v. St. Lawrence County Public Health Department

102 A.D.3d 140 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 21, 2012

In response, then Governor Paterson issued an executive order declaring a disaster emergency with respect to the influenza outbreak, which authorized state and local health departments to establish immunization programs in … We are unpersuaded by plaintiffs assertion that immunity pursuant to the PREP Act does not extend to qualified persons who administer a covered countermeasure to an individual without consent.

Rattray v. Woodbury County, Iowa

754 F. Supp. 2d 1023 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Dec 1, 2010

Qualified Immunity...................................................1028 1. Clearly established right...........................................1029 2. … qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the alleged constitutional right was clearly established at the time and that the officer’s conduct violated that right), the proper question is whether the defendants have

Norton v. Rodrigues

955 F.3d 176 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 7, 2020

by the Eighth Amendment and whether that right was clearly established at the relevant time). … Accordingly, to determine whether Rodrigues may have violated a clearly-established right and therefore may not be entitled to qualified immunity, we focus on the portions of the record that could reasonably be read to

Descant v. Adm'rs of Tulane Educ. Fund

639 So. 2d 246 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jul 5, 1994

The retained amount increases to $2,000,000.00 in the event the limitation of liability established by the Medical Malpractice Act is modified or abrogated. … XII, § 10. [9] Louisiana courts have held the following immunities to be personal to the insured and therefore unavailable to the insurer: interspousal immunity, parental immunity, governmental immunity, charitable immunity

Kinlocke v. Benton

257 F. Supp. 3d 1368 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 19, 2017

Next, a plaintiff seeking to overcome a defendant’s qualified' immunity privilege must show that (1) the state actor violated plaintiffs constitutional or statutory rights, and (2) those rights were clearly established at … In sum, when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Kinlocke, there are sufficient allegations to show that Fox violated Kin-locke’s clearly established right to medical care, and hence Fox is not entitled to qualified

Joseph D. Leeks v. Lowell K. Cunningham, Mr. Carson P. Bass Joseph A. Kemper M. Press

997 F.2d 1330 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 18, 1993

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the-denial of qualified immunity, finding that as of 1980 it was “unequivocal” that the law as to the forced medication of a pretrial detainee was clearly established. Id. at 688 . … Thus, in assessing appellant’s qualified immunity claim, our concern is whether statutory or case law existed in July 1989 to clearly establish that a county jail pretrial detainee had a right under the Due Process Clause

Harvey v. Republic Services of Ohio II, 2007 Ca 00278 (3-23-2009)

2009 Ohio 1343 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2009

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. {¶ 21} "VI. … immunity if their conduct does not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

City of Corinth v. Gladys

916 S.W.2d 618 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 14, 1996

Fairfield filed an original answer asserting his affirmative defense of qualified or official immunity. … The City argues that the establishment of Fairfield’s qualified immunity protects the City from liability that may exist under section 101.021(2) of the Texas Tort Claims Act, which provides governmental liability for “personal

Byrd v. Cornelius

52 F.4th 265 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 31, 2022

III Cornelius and Sweetin argue that we should reverse the district court and grant them qualified immunity. … Clearly Established Right Next, we address, taking the facts in the light most favorable to Byrd, whether the officers violated clearly established law when they allegedly used excessive force to arrest a

J.L. v. Barnes

33 A.3d 902 · Superior Court of Delaware · Jun 17, 2011

and qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity When State actors or employees are sued in their individual capacities, they are exempt from liability (known as “qualified immunity”) pursuant to the STCA when: (1) the alleged act or failure to act arises

Allstate Sweeping, LLC v. Calvin Black

706 F.3d 1261 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 7, 2013

Under the qualified-immunity doctrine a public officer or employee is subject to liability only for violating a federal -9- constitutional or statutory right that was clearly established … We conclude that Black is entitled to qualified immunity on the retaliation claim. III.

C.A. v. Lowndes County Department of Family & Children Services

93 F. Supp. 2d 744 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Mar 13, 2000

The first inquiry in examining a defense of qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff has alleged “the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Siegert v. … As such, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right to be free from state-created dangers was not, and is not, clearly established in this jurisdiction.

Trammell v. Thomason

559 F. Supp. 2d 1281 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 3, 2008

“In this Circuit, the law can be “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions from the U.S. … Thus, the Court turns to the next sequential step in a qualified immunity analysis, which is to determine whether the right was “clearly established.” Was the right clearly established?