Case law

Smith v. Kenny

678 F. Supp. 2d 1093 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jul 24, 2009

to qualified immunity. … issue of qualified immunity.

Parker v. American Traffic Solutions, Inc.

835 F.3d 1363 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 31, 2016

It is by now well-established that an order denying federal qualified immunity satisfies the above requirements. See Schmelz v. Monroe Cty., 954 F.2d 1540 , 1543 (11th Cir. 1992) (citing Mitchell v. … Rule 38 sanctions are appropriately imposed against appellants who raise “clearly frivolous claims in the face of established law and clear facts.” Farese v.

CHS Industries, LLC v. United States Customs & Border Protection

653 F. Supp. 2d 50 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 10, 2009

. —, 129 S.Ct. 808, 815 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009), the Supreme Court gave a succinct overview of the qualified immunity doctrine: The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages … insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Shattuck v. Town of Stratford

233 F. Supp. 2d 301 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Nov 13, 2002

Even where the plaintiffs, federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was objectively reasonable for him to … violate” clearly established constitutional rights).

Buchhorn v. Douglas County, Kansas, Board of Commissioners

District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 2, 2025

clearly established if a case exists that is factually identical. … than their prosecutorial duties, they are entitled to qualified immunity so long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Argueta v. Jaradi

94 F.4th 475 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 29, 2024

Because of the disputed facts, and the clearly established law preventing officers from using deadly force after incapacitating an individual, the officer was precluded from qualified immunity. Id. at 339. … are material to the application of qualified immunity.

(PC) Perez v. Smith

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 4, 2022

Qualified Immunity 20 The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials ... from liability for 21 civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate … based on qualified immunity is appropriate.

Fields v. Abbott

652 F.3d 886 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 30, 2011

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … due process right that Fields asserts was clearly established when the events in this case took place.

Martinez v. New York City Tr. Auth.

2022 NY Slip Op 00252 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 13, 2022

At the same time, we find that the TA was not entitled to pretrial dismissal of the complaint on the basis of qualified immunity. … In that case, the Court of Appeals emphasized that a governmental body claiming qualified immunity based on its having studied a particular condition alleged to have caused injury must establish that the study was indeed

Blankenship v. Warren County, Va.

918 F. Supp. 970 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 19, 1996

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials who perform discretionary functions “from civil liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … “Under Harlow , therefore, the focus of an inquiry into a defendant’s qualified immunity is ordinarily the ‘objective reasonableness’ of the official’s discretionary conduct as measured by reference to clearly established

Burdeshaw v. Snell

350 F. Supp. 2d 944 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 4, 2004

Federal Claims and Qualified Immunity 1. General Principles Snell has pled the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … Under the second prong, the court must determine whether the applicable law was clearly established at the time of the challenged action, that is, whether the defendant would have violated a clearly established right under

Atcherson v. Siebenmann

605 F.2d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 13, 1979

The Qualified Immunity Defense. … While we hold infra that Atcherson’s allegations of misconduct by her fellow probation officers qualify for constitutional protection, that conclusion was by no means “clearly established” at the time of the events in question

Minnis v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University & Agricultural & Mechanical College

972 F. Supp. 2d 878 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Sep 18, 2013

To achieve this balance, qualified immunity shields government officials from liability when they perform discretionary functions provided that their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … immunity because they do not clearly violate any of Minnis’s constitutional rights.

Brown v. Grove

647 F. Supp. 2d 1178 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 16, 2009

Defendants’ Qualified Immunity Defense Is Denied Defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety on the ground that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established federal … To be protected under qualified immunity, a government employee must show that the right the plaintiff complains of was not clearly established at the time the defendants acted or, assuming that it was clearly established

Michael Chrestman v. Metro Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., Tenn.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 16, 2025

That this case comes to us at the motion-to-dismiss stage complicates our analysis of the clearly established prong of the officers’ qualified-immunity defense. … There, we explained that “dismissing for qualified immunity” on the clearly established prong “is sometimes difficult because the clearly established inquiry may turn on case-specific details that must be fleshed out in discovery

Green v. Henley

727 F. Supp. 582 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 13, 1989

immunity. … Accordingly, summary judgment in defendants’ favor on the basis of qualified immunity is appropriate as well.

Cortez v. McCauley

478 F.3d 1108 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 19, 2007

permissible (violates clearly established law). … We held that, for purposes of qualified immunity, the plaintiff had not shown the violation of a clearly established right, given a lack of evidence of physical injury or “apparent physical damage to the plaintiff's wrists

James W. Smoak v. Eric Hall, David Bush Jeff Phann Tim McHood Brian Brock Jerry Andrews, Lieutenant

460 F.3d 768 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 25, 2006

A right is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes when the contours of the right are sufficiently clear, even if the specific action in question has never been held unlawful. See Sample, 409 F.3d at 698 . … established at the time as to deny the defendants the benefits of qualified immunity.

Ryan Steinhoff v. Matthew Malovrh

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 24, 2026

The district court further concluded that Detective Kowalczyk was entitled to qualified immunity because Steinhoff did not identify clearly established law “prohibiting the use of a takedown under the dynamic cir- cumstances … As for the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, a constitutional right is clearly established if existing prece- dent “place[s] the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” Rivas-Villegas v.

Emerson v. Borland

927 S.W.2d 709 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Sep 18, 1996

(ii) Qualified immunity. … To preclude immunity from suit, the clearly established right must be the federal right on which the claim for relief is based and must be established at the time of the violation. Elder v.