Case law

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.

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

Moore v. Morgan

922 F.2d 1553 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 7, 1991

Finally, Moore contends that even if Morgan and the commissioners did not waive the defense of qualified immunity, they did not meet their burden of establishing the defense. … He correctly stated that the test for qualified immunity is an objective one: whether reasonable county commissioners could have concluded their conduct to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information

E. Irene Wrigley v. Basil G. Greanias, Individually and as State's Attorney in and for MacOn County, Illinois

842 F.2d 955 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 13, 1988

Greanias would be entitled to qualified immunity if, at the time he acted, the law did not clearly establish that a state’s attorney was prevented from discharging someone holding this particular position. … Greanias’ claim of qualified immunity clearly is premised on acceptance of his view of the position’s re *960 sponsibilities. He does not contend that, even if Mrs.

Papp v. Snyder

81 F. Supp. 2d 852 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 20, 2000

The right to be free from excessive force is clearly established under the Fourth Amendment for purposes of qualified immunity. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 , 109 S.Ct. 1865 , 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989). … Having found a potential constitutional violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the Court must now consider the final step of the qualified immunity analysis.

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.

Chu v. Mississippi State University

901 F. Supp. 2d 761 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Oct 3, 2012

In evaluating a claim of qualified immunity, courts consider (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct … Qualified immunity bars suit against state officials “if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Chambers v. Pennycook

641 F.3d 898 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 6, 2011

right was clearly established. … The second step in the qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the right that was violated was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct. Pearson, 129 S. Ct. at 816.

Benavidez v. Shutiva

2015 NMCA 65 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2015

To overcome the qualified immunity defense, a “plaintiff 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 … Since the law was not clearly established, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and the lower court’s decision was reversed.

Linda DeVooght v. City of Warren, Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 5, 2025

On appeal, Dwyer contends that he didn’t violate DeVooght’s clearly established First Amendment rights, so he should receive qualified immunity. … We have repeatedly held that a public employee’s right to engage in protected speech without retaliation is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. See Buddenberg v.

Martino v. Hogan

37 Mass. App. Ct. 710 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Dec 13, 1994

The defendants answered with denials and defenses including the defense of “qualified immunity.” … Finally, even were it assumed that the constitutional rule was “clearly established” and violated, so that qualified immunity did not attach, the defendants could be held individually liable for damages for the infractions

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’

M.W. Ex Rel. T.W. v. Madison County Board of Education

262 F. Supp. 2d 737 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · May 7, 2003

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 a … was clearly established.

Rose v. Town of Concord

971 F. Supp. 47 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 15, 1997

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their actions “[do] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … An Officer’s “qualified immunity is pierced only if there clearly was no probable cause at the time the arrest was made.” Id.; see also Topp v. Wolkowski, 994 F.2d 45, 48 (1st Cir.1993).

Cook v. City of Topeka

232 Kan. 334 · Supreme Court of Kansas · Dec 3, 1982

Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 [, 55 L.Ed.2d 24 , 98 S.Ct. 855 ] (1978) (qualified immunity for prison officials and officers); Imbler v. … Clearly the routine duty to recall a bench warrant upon payment of the fine cannot be construed as a quasi-judicial act.

Coen v. Runner

854 F.2d 374 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 16, 1988

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects government officials from personal liability unless their actions violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … Coen’s contention that Runner and Lassi-ter acted under color of state law to abridge his clearly established constitutional rights is threefold.

Brooks v. Northwood Little League, Inc.

327 S.C. 400 · Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Jun 9, 1997

Some courts have focused on the nature of the land itself and have established prerequisites to immunity, namely that the land qualifying for protection is: (1) rural, (2) undeveloped, (3) appropriate for the type of activities … The plain language of our recreational use statute’s provisions clearly protects the Respondents because it grants immunity to “landowners.” 7 S.C.Code Ann. §§ 27-3-10 to 27-3-70; see also T.W.

McGrath v. Tavares

757 F.3d 20 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 1, 2014

Qualified Immunity In any event, even if a constitutional violation was established, Defendants would still be entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly … does not need to establish the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity

Hogan v. Pataki

953 F. Supp. 22 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 15, 1997

Moreover, qualified immunity protects a defendant even where the right in question was clearly established if it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe the acts did not violate that right. … Naturally, then, in so far as the individually named defendants are concerned, they are entitled to qualified immunity in that their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

James v. Price

602 F. Supp. 843 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 21, 1985

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), a government official performing a discretionary function is shielded by qualified immunity unless his actions violated “clearly established statutory or … Operating on the assumption that the right to be free from malicious prosecution was not a clearly established right, we found that the *846 state officers in this case were entitled to rely on the qualified immunity defense