Case law

Knussman v. State of Maryland

272 F.3d 625 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 7, 2001

Public officials “are protected by qualified immunity when performing their duties within the scope of their employment insofar as their conduct does not breach ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “Clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming

495 Mich. 1 · Michigan Supreme Court · Feb 6, 2014

Among them is § 4(a) of the MMMA, which immunizes registered qualifying patients from “penalty in any manner” for specified MMMA-compliant medical marijuana use. MCL 333.26424(a). … The City seems to suggest that, for this immunity to attach, a registered qualifying patient must show a “demonstrated need” under MCL 125.3207 for his or her MMMA-compliant medical marijuana use.

Texas A&M University Texas A&M University System Dr. Jerry Gaston And Eugene Ray v. Don Thompson

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Dec 18, 2003

Appellants assert the protection of sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and quasi-judicial or official immunity against Thompson’s numerous claims. … was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established right.

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.”

Helfrick v. Rabb

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Dec 1, 2021

qualified immunity — are either without merit or do not dispose of Helfrick’s claims for prospective relief. … Va. 2017) (holding that claims against Commonwealth’s attorney or his office are paid in part by the state, thus qualifying for immunity), aff’d, 715 F.

Bueno v. Chekush

355 F. Supp. 3d 987 · District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 21, 2018

Clearly Established Law Regarding the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the misconduct. … The dispositive question is whether the violative nature of the particular conduct is clearly established .... Qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.

Cerrone v. Cahill

84 F. Supp. 2d 330 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 28, 2000

Standard for Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from suit for acts undertaken in the course of their duties if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … When a right is clearly established, qualified immunity also attaches “insofar as it was objectively reasonable to believe that [the government agent’s] acts did not violate these rights.” Calamia v.

Mendez-Palou v. Rohena-Betancourt

813 F.2d 1255 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 10, 1987

not “clearly established.” … The district courts in the cases presently before us concluded that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because Elrod and Branti clearly established that the first amendment protects government employees from

Nichols v. Block

656 F. Supp. 1436 · District Court, D. Montana · Mar 5, 1987

This qualified immunity is in the nature of an affirmative *1441 defense and protects an official from liability only if he can show that his actions did not contravene clearly established constitutional rights of which a … Whether the officials may prevail in their defense of qualified immunity depends upon “the objective reasonableness of [their] conduct as measured by clearly established law.”

John Griswold v. Trinity Health Michigan

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 11, 2026

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. … But it was not clearly established that the circumstances leading to his death satisfied the objective prong of the Farmer test. The jail officials therefore are entitled to qualified immunity.

Borrero v. Metro-Dade County

19 F. Supp. 2d 1310 · District Court, S.D. Florida · May 13, 1998

Therefore, qualified immunity will not apply only when a reasonable official would have known that her actions violated an individual’s clearly established rights. See Anderson v. … Therefore, as the facts stand at the summary judgment stage, Officer Serrano is not entitled to qualified immunity. 3 Moreover, showing that a right is “clearly established” is not the only way a plaintiff can get around

Trujillo v. Board of Education of the Albuquerque Public Schools

377 F. Supp. 2d 977 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 17, 2004

LAW ON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … SECOND PRONG OF THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ANALYSIS: THE LAW MUST BE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED. Whether the law was clearly established at the time the claim arose is a legal issue for the court. See Elder v.

Lopez v. Aran

600 F. Supp. 323 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 31, 1984

The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages in the exercise of discretionary functions insofar as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … statutory right clearly established at that time.

Lyles v. City of Barling

17 F. Supp. 2d 848 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 26, 1998

A court must measure the objective reasonableness of a defendant’s conduct by reference to clearly established law. “No other ‘circumstances’ are relevant to the issue of qualified immunity.” Davis v. … that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Linscott

District Court, W.D. Michigan · Oct 23, 2025

If the court can conclude either that no constitutional violation occurred or that the right was not clearly established, qualified immunity is warranted. … In response to Defendants’ qualified immunity argument, Plaintiff simply argues that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity without citing any case that he claims shows Defendants violated clearly established

Westfahl v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 4, 2015

Qualified Immunity Defendants first contend that Officer Robinson is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Westfahl’s excessive-force claim. … “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff” shows “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’

Blackburn v. Jansen

241 F. Supp. 2d 1047 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Jan 14, 2003

. § 1983 , is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated a “clearly established” federal statutory or constitutional right of the plaintiff. … Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 , 122 S.Ct. 2508, 2515 , 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002), recently described “clearly established law” as follows: As we have explained, qualified immunity operates “to ensure that before they are subjected to

Sonoda v. Cabrera

255 F.3d 1035 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 3, 2001

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants, to the extent they have been sued in their individual capacities for violation of § 1983, have raised qualified immunity as an affirmative defense. … Because Sonoda has established a constitutional violation based upon due process, it is necessary to determine whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Thomas v. Collins

860 S.W.2d 500 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Jul 1, 1993

To meet this burden, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s conduct “violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Brown v. … Reviewing appellant’s pleading under this standard, his allegations are sufficient to allege that Collins violated his clearly established eighth amendment rights.

State ex rel. Youth Services Systems, Inc. v. Wilson

204 W. Va. 637 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 13, 1999

In this case, Youth Services contends that the circuit court’s ruling with regard to its entitlement to immunity was clearly erroneous as a matter of law. III. … Since the immunity provisions at issue apply only to political subdivisions, Youth Services must first qualify as a “political subdivision” to invoke statutory immunity.