Case law

Rodriguez-Cruz v. Trujillo

443 F. Supp. 2d 240 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 11, 2006

Immunity Lastly, defendant raises the qualified immunity defense. … Thus, “qualified immunity remains available to defendants who demonstrate that they acted objectively reasonably in applying clearly established law to the specific facts they faced.” Burke v.

Matthew Locke v. County of Hubbard

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 17, 2025

While I disagree with the court’s constitutional analysis, I need not resolve that inquiry as the case can be easily resolved under the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See Pearson v. … This does not constitute a violation of a clearly established right; therefore, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Landon Michael v. Joshua Trevena

899 F.3d 528 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 7, 2018

"[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was 'clearly established at the time.' " District … In this case, neither party disputes the clearly-established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

John Lanigan, Sr. v. Village of East Hazel Crest, Illinois, Officer Robert Wasek, Chief Ray Robertson

110 F.3d 467 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 28, 1997

Finally, the district court found that all three individual defendants were shielded from liability by qualified immunity because their conduct was not unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … Cournia set forth the test for qualified immunity as follows: First, the plaintiff must show that the law was clearly established when the challenged conduct occurred.

Blevins v. Denny

114 N.C. App. 766 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 17, 1994

Similarly, the Court concluded that denial of a public official’s claim of qualified immunity from suit, to the extent that it turns on the legal questions of whether the conduct complained of violated “clearly established … In Mitchell , the United States Supreme Court went on to explain that entitlement [to qualified immunity] is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively

The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley v. Paul C. Kavanaugh

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Feb 23, 2023

Kavanaugh responded that the record supported his contrary assertion that he was clearly better qualified for the position than Perez. … Normally, the plaintiff’s longer tenure with the employer would not establish that he was clearly better qualified than the selected candidate. See Martinez v.

Tubar v. Clift

286 F. App'x 348 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 11, 2008

Qualified immunity protects government officials acting in their official capacities from civil liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights of which a “reasonable” official … In Saucier, the Supreme Court imposed a specific, sequential analysis for determining whether qualified immunity is warranted.

Blaylock v. Schwinden

862 F.2d 1352 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 7, 1988

Moreover, plaintiffs were clearly seeking damages from the public treasury. … A state indemnification statute does not automatically extend immunity to state officials. See Demery v.

Robert P. Brennan v. Township of Northville, Lawrence Demeter and Fred Yankee, Individually and in Their Official Capacities

78 F.3d 1152 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 26, 1996

Lawrence Demeter and Fred Yankee appeal the denial of qualified immunity in this action premised on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … II A denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds may be reviewed on interlocutory appeal under Mitchell v.

Williams v. Prince George's County

112 Md. App. 526 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 1996

Because of these considerations, immunity is granted to officers who act reasonably, albeit mistakenly, in light of clearly established law and the information they possessed without the benefit of hindsight. … immunity because their actions were in conformity with “clearly established” legal rules.

Henry Lavado, Jr. v. Patrick W. Keohane

992 F.2d 601 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 22, 1993

The prison officials again respond that they are entitled to qualified immunity because “[t]here is ... no clearly established law holding that a prisoner has a constitutional right to have his legal related mail opened only … whether the officers did acts which violate clearly established rights.”); Pecsi v.

James T. Martin, Jr. v. D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, Richard Xander, James T. Martin, Jr. v. D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, Richard Xander

812 F.2d 1425 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 8, 1987

(footnotes omitted); Mitchell, 105 S.Ct. at 2816 (defendant entitled to dismissal on qualified immunity plea unless plaintiff states a claim of violation of clearly established law). … Harlow, 457 U.S. at 817-18 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 . 23 The "clearly established law" and "objective reasonableness" facets of current qualified immunity doctrine tug in opposite directions where, as here, the "clearly established

Bennett v. Murphy

274 F.3d 133 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 2, 2002

that claims of qualified immunity are to be evaluated using a two-step process. … immunity claim move to the second step of the analysis to determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established.

Yvette Felarca v. Robert Birgeneau

891 F.3d 809 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 31, 2018

Nonetheless, he believed that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the law at the time they acted did not clearly establish the illegality of their conduct. … Nonetheless, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because the law at the time they acted did not clearly establish the illegality of their conduct.

Flint ex rel. Flint v. Kentucky Department of Corrections

270 F.3d 340 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 26, 2001

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established’ statutory … violating a clearly established right of Flint’s.

Corral v. Montgomery County

4 F. Supp. 3d 739 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 5, 2014

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to Section 1983 claims and “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability.

Ricciuti v. New York City Transit Authority

796 F. Supp. 84 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 4, 1992

have been thought consistent with the rights they are alleged to have violated” in light of clearly established law____ [T]he dismissal of a claim against an officer asserting qualified immunity in no way logically entails … They can do so by establishing a good faith, qualified immunity defense. This good faith defense is not available to the municipality.

Brett Kohorst v. Thomas Smith

968 F.3d 871 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 6, 2020

Officer Smith’s actions, while a close call, did not violate a clearly established right and the district court did not err in granting qualified immunity. B. … Because a jury could reasonably conclude that Smith violated Kohorst’s clearly established right to be free from excessive force during the initial takedown, Smith is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Bryant v. Louisville Metro Hous. Auth.

568 S.W.3d 839 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 2019

Louisville Metro, then, is clearly cloaked in sovereign immunity. … Juanita Mitchell is entitled to official qualified immunity Because we have held that LMHA is an immune entity, we must determine whether Mitchell is, therefore, extended qualified official immunity for her actions as a government

Cope v. Coleman County

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 26, 2024

In order to overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show: (1) the defendant violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and (2) “the right at issue was clearly established at the time of [the] defendant’s alleged … ’s holding of Monroe in a cell containing a phone cord did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.”); id.