Case law

Herman v. City of Tucson

197 Ariz. 430 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Nov 23, 1999

In defense, the City asserted qualified immunity under the recreational use statute. … To conclusively establish recreational user status based solely on the City’s grant of permission to all persons to enter a park, the Hermans argue, would result in “a ‘blanket immunity’ that covers everyone in the world,

Starlight Sugar, Inc. v. Soto

253 F.3d 137 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 11, 2001

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1981), the district court identified a two-part test for determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity: (1) whether the law was clearly established at the time the action was … When determining whether a constitutional right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, state,4 as well as federal, decisions can be considered. See Cinelli v.

Stagemeyer v. County of Dawson

192 F. Supp. 2d 998 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Mar 20, 2002

Qualified Immunity “Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Likewise, because qualified immunity is not clearly established on the face of the complaint, I shall also deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Fourth Amendment claim based on qualified immunity.

Hudson v. Hall

231 F.3d 1289 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 9, 2000

violated clearly established law." … clearly established law.

Kurtz v. Denniston

872 F. Supp. 631 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Dec 19, 1994

Delo, 999 F.2d 364, 366 (8th Cir.1993) (first step in qualified immunity analysis was determination of whether conduct violated any clearly established right). … special religious diet is clearly established.

Brian Dias William Mason, Sr. v. Jose Elique Michael Murray University and Community College System of Nevada University of Nevada, Las Vegas

436 F.3d 1125 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 6, 2006

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Appellants assert Murray and Elique (the “Supervisors”) violated their clearly established constitutional rights by initiating an investigation without giving Appellants proper notice under Nev.Rev. … The district court applied the doctrine of qualified immunity and dismissed these claims. 5 To determine whether summary judgment on qualified immunity was proper, we must first evaluate whether, taking the facts in the light

Brinston v. Dunn

928 F. Supp. 669 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Apr 22, 1996

And finally, Dunn maintains that she is entitled to qualified immunity, in any event, since plaintiffs claimed First Amendment right was not- clearly established at the time his employment was terminated. … However, “[government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless their conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Shearer v. Tacoma School District No. 10

942 F. Supp. 2d 1120 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 29, 2013

Jarvis is not entitled to qualified immunity because he violated plaintiffs clearly established right to due process; (4) Dr. … Jarvis is not entitled to qualified immunity because he violated plaintiffs clearly established right to due process.

James Meyer v. Lana J. Robinson, Individually and as a Police Officer of the City of Lawrence

992 F.2d 734 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 6, 1993

The court adopted the following rule: “The question determining the existence of qualified immunity is whether a reasonable person could have believed the defendants’ actions to be lawful in light of clearly established law … Under the Harlow standard, qualified immunity should be granted when the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

VINAGRO v. Reitsma

260 F. Supp. 2d 425 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · May 6, 2003

Qualified Immunity Generally, “[qualified immunity shields government officials wielding discretionary powers ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … A qualified immunity defense is only available to a defendant who could not have been reasonably expected to know that he was violating a clearly established constitutional right. See Amsden, 904 F.2d at 752 .

Ontiveros v. City of Rosenberg, Tex.

564 F.3d 379 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 30, 2009

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. … In order to evaluate the “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity test, the court must ask whether, at the time of the incident, the law clearly established that such conduct would violate the right.

Goodwin Ex Rel. Nall v. City of Painesville

781 F.3d 314 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 19, 2015

THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ANALYSIS The qualified immunity doctrine “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Caselaw reveals that such a right was clearly established. The Officers contend that Officer Soto is entitled to qualified immunity not just on his initial decision to taser Mr.

Dennis v. Board of Education

21 F. Supp. 3d 497 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 8, 2014

immunity. 3 School officials *503 performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity — they are shielded from liability for civil damages to the extent “ ‘their conduct does not .violate clearly established statutory … was ‘clearly established’ at the time of its violation.”

Battiste v. Rojeski

257 F. Supp. 2d 957 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · May 12, 2003

To determine the issue of qualified immunity, I must determine first, whether the officer’s alleged conduct violated a constitutional right; and if so, whether that right was clearly established. Saucier v. … Even if a right is clearly established, defendants are still entitled to qualified immunity if their actions were reasonable. See Anderson v.

Estevis v. Cantu

134 F.4th 793 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 16, 2025

We reverse and render judgment granting the officers qualified immunity for all shots fired. … In any event, Estevis bore the burden to negate qualified immunity by showing shots 4–9 violated clearly established law. See King v.

Copelin-Brown v. New Mexico State Personnel Office

399 F.3d 1248 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 1, 2005

Qualified Immunity We review de novo a district court’s ruling on qualified immunity. Farmer v. Perrill, 288 F.3d 1254, 1259 (10th Cir. 2002). … At the same time, the Court has stated that “[i]f the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.”

Musonza v. Costanzo

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 2026

That is because the Court resolved the excessive force claim on the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … An officer might, therefore, be entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established right, but nevertheless not be entitled to the qualified privilege because their use of “force was not objectively

Golden Rule Insurance v. Long

113 N.C. App. 187 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 23, 1993

In order to defeat the qualified immunity, plaintiff had to show that defendant violated some clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … This standard determines if further proceedings are barred by qualified immunity by examining the law in existence at the time of the offense to determine if it contained “clearly established . . . rights of which a reasonable

Kapinski v. City of Albuquerque

District Court, D. New Mexico · Aug 19, 2019

Instead, “[i]n the context of a qualified immunity defense on an unlawful search or arrest claim, we ascertain whether a defendant violated clearly established law by asking whether there was ‘arguable probable cause’ … Even if Plaintiff could get past the first prong of qualified immunity by establishing a constitutional violation, he would still lose on the second prong.

Herbert Liverman v. City of Petersburg

844 F.3d 400 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 15, 2016

contours of protected speech in this area were not clearly established. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry v.