Case law

Haggerty v. Texas Southern University

391 F.3d 653 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 18, 2004

Jurisdiction over this Appeal “Denial of summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity is immediately appealable to the extent that the question on appeal is whether the undisputed facts amount to a violation of clearly … established law.”

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.

Hassan Ex Rel. Hassan v. Lubbock Independent School District

55 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 27, 1995

Questions of law are reviewed ... de novo."5 In examining the claims of qualified immunity on summary judgment, we first inquire whether Hassan has alleged "the violation of a clearly … The determination whether a right is "clearly established" is a more particularized inquiry than Hassan suggests; otherwise, plaintiffs could "convert the rule of qualified immunity ... into a rule of virtually unqualified

McClennon v. Kipke

821 F. Supp. 2d 1101 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Oct 31, 2011

Seizing on Chambers, the Individual Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity here because (1) McClennon suffered only de minimis injuries and (2) it was not clearly established on December 20, 2006, that inflicting … to qualified immunity on the excessive-force claim.

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.

Denieva v. Reyes

966 F.2d 480 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 5, 1992

by qualified immunity. … Did DeNieva Identify a Specific Right, and Was it Clearly Established? 21 We can consider the first two prongs of the Romero test together, as both raise the question of Reyes' violation of a clearly established right.

Rodeman v. Foster

767 F. Supp. 2d 1176 · District Court, D. Colorado · Mar 16, 2011

Once defendants asserted qualified immunity, the burden shifted to plaintiff to show the violation of a clearly established right. See Powell v. … no material facts remain in dispute that would defeat his or her claim of qualified immunity.”).

Jerry Hollingsworth and Kenneth Anderson v. Kim Hackler, Individually and as Next Friend for C. H., a Minor, and Steve Hackler, Individually and as Next Friend for C. H., a Minor

Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · Dec 31, 2009

of qualified immunity shields an official performing discretionary functions from individual liability for civil damages under § 1983 if the official’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … ’s conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.18 A right is “clearly established” when its contours are “sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing

Glorianna Moore v. Oakland County, Mich.

126 F.4th 1163 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 23, 2025

qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity spares officers from “the time, expense and risk of money-damages actions” unless they violate clearly established constitutional rights. Hagans v. Franklin Cnty.

Hampton v. Oktibbeha County Sheriff Department

480 F.3d 358 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 6, 2007

establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.” … If the plaintiff fails to state a constitutional claim or if the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable under clearly established law, then the government official is entitled to qualified immunity.

Koch v. Rugg

221 F.3d 1283 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 11, 2000

clearly established law." … violate clearly established law.").

In Re Cincinnati Radiation Litigation

874 F. Supp. 796 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 11, 1995

of a qualified immunity defense. … The task of determining what makes a right “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity has been accurately labeled a “labyrinth”. See Long v. Norris, 929 F.2d 1111, 1114 (6th Cir.1991).

CAREPARTNERS, LLC v. Lashway

545 F.3d 867 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 25, 2008

If the right was not clearly established at the time of the violation, the official is entitled to qualified immunity. 6 Id. A. … Therefore, the First Amendment rights advanced by CarePartners were clearly established for the purpose of evaluating the State employees’ qualified immunity defense.

Cooper v. Bonaventura

470 F. Supp. 2d 642 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jan 25, 2007

To decide a defense of qualified immunity, I must first determine whether the agent has violated a particular constitutional right and if so, next proceed to decide whether that right was clearly established at the time of … Even assuming that the seizure was not supported by probable cause, Bonaventura is still entitled to qualified immunity so long as the seizure did not violate a clearly established right of which an objectively reasonable

Almonte v. City of Long Beach

478 F.3d 100 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 14, 2007

Qualified Immunity Based on the “Policymaker Exception” The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials from personal liability for official actions, “unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional … Stated differently, an official is entitled to qualified immunity (1) if the plaintiff has not alleged a violation of a constitutional right, (2) if that right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct, or (3

Sprague v. City of Burley

109 Idaho 656 · Idaho Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1985

If the law was clearly established, the *666 immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … The United States Supreme Court in Harlow has established a threshold test that must be met by the plaintiff, if the defendant has asserted the affirmative defense of a qualified immunity, before a defendant’s motion for

Wynn v. Morgan

861 F. Supp. 622 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jul 8, 1994

However, the Sixth Circuit noted, the defendants may assert the defense of qualified immunity to the extent that their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … were “clearly established” at the time the actions were taken.

Betances v. Fischer

144 F. Supp. 3d 441 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 6, 2015

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged … Qualified Immunity This Court has previously held that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. 63 Defendants had argued that plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were not “clearly established” at the time those rights

Robbin Amanda Bayse v. Ted Philbin

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 1, 2025

Although the magistrate judge acknowledged that “the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S. … “In this circuit, the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Pesek v. City of Brunswick

794 F. Supp. 768 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 2, 1992

right asserted is clearly established. … violated a clearly established constitutional right.