Case law

Texas Department of Public Safety v. Tanner

928 S.W.2d 731 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Aug 21, 1996

Like Hullum and DPS, we use the term "qualified immunity” when referring to the federal defense and "official immunity” when referring to the state defense. 3 . … Furthermore, Hullum did not move for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity to the section 1983 claim.

Austin v. Redford Township Police Department

859 F. Supp. 2d 883 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 30, 2011

The qualified immunity objections The defendants’ fourth objection does not challenge the magistrate’s conclusion that the law concerning the use of Tasers on subdued suspects is clearly established. … The fact that defendant Pauli may have violated a clearly established constitutional right necessarily means that defendant Pauli is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Mary Estep v. Police Officer Mackey

639 F. App'x 870 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 12, 2016

This “collateral-order doctrine” allows us to review certain orders that deny a defendant’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds because qualified immunity “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Smith v. Plati

56 F. Supp. 2d 1195 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jul 22, 1999

law was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred.” … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Wullschleger v. Peters

28 F. Supp. 2d 549 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Nov 20, 1998

a qualified immunity defense if they prove that their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Qualified immunity is a question of law.

Sand v. Steele

218 F. Supp. 2d 788 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Aug 15, 2002

As has been ruled consistently in the past: The doctrine of good faith qualified immunity shields government employees performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless their conduct violates clearly established … “The doctrine of good faith qualified immunity shields government employees performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Verdecia v. United States

327 F.3d 1171 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 29, 2003

a violation of clearly established law, this Court may properly exercise jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal”). … This court, however, “reviews summary judgment orders deciding qualified immunity questions differently from other summary judgment decisions” because of the purposes behind qualified immunity. Holland v.

Sellers ex rel. Sellers v. Baer

28 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 8, 1994

We hold that the conduct of the officers did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would have known, and the officers therefore are entitled to qualified immunity. C. … Accordingly, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because even the right broadly asserted in this case was not clearly established in 1986. .

Nibbs v. Roberts

31 V.I. 196 · District Court, Virgin Islands · Feb 8, 1995

light of clearly established law and the information the ... officer[] possessed. … Although appellant never expressly raised the defense of qualified immunity in his answer to the complaint, we nevertheless discuss generally the parameters of the defense since the trial court instructed the jury on qualified

Rodriguez v. Laredo Independent School District

82 F. Supp. 2d 679 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 2, 2000

Superintendent Cruz CV Qualified Immunity .In Harlow v. … ’s actions did not violate ... clearly established First Amendment rights.”).

Williams v. Brown

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 4, 2022

Defendant Gulick argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff has not stated a constitutional deprivation and, even assuming that he did, the implicated right was not clearly established. … Qualified immunity requires a two-pronged analysis: “whether the plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for violation of a constitutional or statutory right and whether the right was clearly established at the time of

Wilkerson v. State

16 Brief Times Rptr. 394 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 1992

The plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was “clearly established.” … Hence, we find no basis justifying penetration of the shield of qualified immunity afforded to these defendants. *1127 While the question of qualified immunity generally turns on objective factors, Harlow does not preclude

Batton v. Mashburn

107 F. Supp. 3d 1191 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 12, 2015

Qualified immunity shields from liability government officials performing discretionary functions “if their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable government official would have known.” … Because Plaintiff has alleged the violation of his right of association and this right was clearly established at the time of his termination, Mashburn is not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to this claim. 5 B

Gean v. Hattaway

330 F.3d 758 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 6, 2003

We have established that there are two ways in which a plaintiff seeking to overcome the bar of qualified immunity can show that a right was clearly established in the law at the time the alleged violation occurred. … In order to overcome the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiffs must show that the right allegedly violated was “clearly established in a more particularized ... sense,” Anderson v.

Dorsey v. Wallace

134 F. Supp. 2d 1364 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Oct 17, 2000

In doing so, the plaintiffs cannot discharge their burden of showing that a right is clearly established by referring to general rules and abstract rights in order to strip the officers of their qualified immunity. … To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiffs must show that: (1) the officers violated a federal constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Santamorena v.

Adams v. May

903 F. Supp. 2d 433 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Oct 19, 2012

qualified immunity because his actions were objectively reasonable in light of the information available to him and the law that was clearly established at the time of his actions. … May is entitled to qualified immunity regarding his actions of applying pepper spray. 2.

Vanterpool v. Cuccinelli

998 F. Supp. 2d 451 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 7, 2014

To grant a defendant qualified immunity a court must find that the defendant’s conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. … established in the Fourth Circuit at all times relevant to this action, and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 6 C.

Vaughn v. Gray

557 F.3d 904 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 6, 2009

In deciding whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court asks two questions: “(1) whether ... there was a deprivation of a constitutional right; and, if so, (2) whether the right was clearly established … In this case, Appellants argue only that Vaughn has not established the deprivation of a constitutional right, and therefore, we need not address whether that right was “clearly established.”

Gonzalez v. City of Phoenix

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 8, 2026

Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, we examine whether the officers’ constitutional violation was clearly established. … So the clearly established prong of qualified immunity must be analyzed officer by officer. The Ninth Circuit has struggled to apply clearly established law properly in the past. See Kisela v.

Robinson v. City and County of Denver

39 F. Supp. 2d 1257 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 26, 1999

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability under section 1983 where their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Was the Constitutional Right Clearly Established?