Case law

Campos De Suenos, Ltd. v. County of Bernalillo

130 N.M. 563 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 2001

They correctly point out that to overcome their assertions of qualified immunity, CDS “must demonstrate that (1) the defendant’s alleged conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly … established at the time of the conduct.”

Owl v. Robertson

79 F. Supp. 2d 1104 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Jan 12, 2000

Qualified immunity is a question of law. … See, e.g., Otey, 121 F.3d at 1155 (reversing denial of motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds; police chief did not violate clearly established federal rights of which a reasonable person would have known

A.S. ex rel. J.S. v. Reaves

1 So. 3d 980 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 27, 2008

Foltz, 370 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir.2004), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that, to overcome qualified immunity, not only must the government official violate a clearly established statutory or … Fitzgerald and concluded that the constitutional right violated in that case was a clearly established one.

Thomas Moran v. Anne Marie Clark

359 F.3d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 26, 2004

Appellants assert that the law was not clearly established. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001), the fact remains that qualified immunity is reserved for state -4- officials whose conduct is objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established

Haley v. City of Boston

677 F. Supp. 2d 379 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 31, 2009

Qualified immunity attaches to discretionary conduct of government officials that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier v.

Long v. Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority

1 Am. Tribal Law 385 · Mohegan Gaming Disputes Trial Court · Dec 5, 1997

The Discriminatory Employment Practices Ordinance further establishes two types of matters which may be brought to The Gaming Disputes Court, Claims and Appeals, and those qualified to file either one are strictly and narrowly … Section 502 of Mohegan Tribal Ordinance 95-4, which established the Gaming Disputes Court, specifies that nothing in the ordinance establishing the Gaming Disputes Court “shall be construed as a waiver of the sovereign immunity

Bash v. Patrick

608 F. Supp. 2d 1285 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Apr 9, 2009

Qualified Immunity: General Principles Qualified immunity protects government officers sued in their individual capacities from liability for civil damages so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory … Case law need not arise out of factually identical situations to clearly establish law for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis. Id. at 1351 .

Anthony Norman v. Ashlei Janak, Bobby Lumpkin, Bryan Collier, Shovanda D. Mathis, Margarita Thomas, Rocky Moore, and Tammy Shelby

Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District · May 1, 2025

See 2 Although it is more precise to say Defendants would be entitled to “qualified immunity” under federal law from Norman’s Section 1983 claims, “official immunity” and “qualified immunity” are often used … Further, qualified immunity under federal law is analogous to state law official immunity and “protects governmental officers with discretionary authority from liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Anthony Brown v. Rodney Strain, Jr.

663 F.3d 245 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 18, 2011

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Bass v. Richards

308 F.3d 1081 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 14, 2002

It is subject to appeal, however, when the defendants are public officials asserting a qualified immunity defense and the appealed issue is whether a given set of facts establishes that defendants violated clearly established … Instead, Appellants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Bass' right to affiliate himself with Vorhies, an unannounced candidate, was not clearly established at the time his commission was removed. 21

Drogosch v. Metcalf

557 F.3d 372 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 25, 2009

Clearly established right For a right to be clearly established, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” … Drogosch has accordingly satisfied the “clearly established” prong of the qualified-immunity analysis. D.

Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft

580 F.3d 949 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 4, 2009

AUKidd’s Right Was “Clearly Established.” … Ohio, was certainly clearly established.

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

Milward v. Shaheen

148 F. Supp. 3d 1341 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 29, 2015

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects municipal officers from liability in § 1983 actions as long as their conduct does- not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009)); A right may be clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity in one of three ways: “1) case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing

Wiggins v. Griffin

86 F.4th 987 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 20, 2023

Qualified Immunity We next turn to the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Goord, 467 F.3d 263, 279 (2d Cir. 2006) (“Summary 19 judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is not appropriate because it was clearly established law at the time of the alleged

Tubar v. Clift

453 F. Supp. 2d 1252 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 22, 2006

This “qualified immunity” is determined in two steps. … Moreover, the officer in Acosta was denied qualified immunity because the law at the time of the incident in that case was also “clearly established.”

Blankenship v. Manchin

410 F. Supp. 2d 483 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jan 18, 2006

Clearly Established Law The question under this second and final step in the qualified immunity analysis is “whether a reasonable [official] could have believed [the challenged conduct] to be lawful, in light of clearly established … It is important to note that the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes not only when “the very action in question has previously been held unlawful,” but .also when “pre-existing law” makes the “unlawfulness

Sheila T. Harper v. Lawrence County

584 F.3d 1030 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 7, 2009

on qualified immunity. … Were Harper’s rights clearly established at the time?

Lamont Shepard v. T. Quillen

840 F.3d 686 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 26, 2016

Whether Shepard’s right was clearly established Wise may nevertheless be entitled to qualified immunity if the right at issue was not “clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … We thus do not fault Shepard for failing to address the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis in his opening brief.

Boisseau v. Town of Walls

138 F. Supp. 3d 792 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Oct 8, 2015

The Fifth Circuit has described the basic qualified immunity standard as follows: “This court applies a two-step analysis to determine whether a defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity … Amendment and accordingly upheld the defendant’s qualified immunity defense.