Case law

Randall Fennell v. Matthew Gregory

414 F. App'x 32 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 31, 2011

violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established in light of the circumstances of this case. … established for qualified immunity purposes.

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.”).

Brumley v. Utah State Tax Commission

220 Utah Adv. Rep. 45 · Utah Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1993

However, a plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of a constitutional or statutory right may overcome the defendant officials’ qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of … Because the constitutional rights in question were not “clearly established” during the twenty-day period, we find no error in the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ civil rights action on the ground of qualified immunity

Tillman v. Coley

703 F. Supp. 1571 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jan 18, 1989

denial of defendant’s claim of good faith or qualified immunity. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Wright v. Dee

54 F. Supp. 2d 199 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 28, 1999

A state actor is qualifiedly immune where his actions did not violate rights that a reasonable person would have known were clearly established. Stuto v. Fleishman, 164 F.3d 820, 825 (2d Cir.1999). … Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of Wright’s disciplinary hearing that assignment to the SHU for three years and the loss of good time credits

Judy Baker Mary Allison and Bonnie Johnson v. Pat Hadley, Columbiana County Auditor

72 F.3d 129 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 5, 1995

The Supreme Court has also instructed that when analyzing whether a right is clearly established, the court must carefully define the right at issue: 9 The operation of this ["clearly established law"] standard, however, … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Eberhardinger v. City of York

341 F. Supp. 3d 420 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 2018

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects a state actor who has committed a constitutional violation if the plaintiff's rights were not "clearly established" when the individual acted. See Pearson v. … The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly admonished that, when analyzing qualified immunity, courts should not "define clearly established law at a high level of generality."

Norwood v. Woodford

583 F. Supp. 2d 1200 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 5, 2008

The defense 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 … “If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful,” a finding of qualified immunity is appropriate, as “qualified immunity protects ‘all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly

Avila v. Butt Thornton & Baher, P.C.

New Mexico Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2025

officers are protected by qualified immunity. … qualified immunity is available to BTB cannot be upheld.

State v. Jones

416 S.C. 283 · Supreme Court of South Carolina · May 18, 2016

In a pretrial motion, Jones asserted immunity from prosecution under the "Protection of Persons and Property Act" (the Act).1 Following a hearing, the circuit court judge granted the motion, finding Jones established by … Conclusion We conclude the circuit court judge properly granted Jones immunity from prosecution pursuant to section 16-11-440(C) because Jones's residence qualified as "another place" where she had the right to be

Springer v. Seventh Judicial District Court

District Court, D. New Mexico · Feb 9, 2024

“Qualified immunity ‘protects governmental officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Hunter, 669 F.3d 937, 939-40 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Qualified immunity is only an immunity from a suit for money damages, and does not provide immunity from a suit seeking declaratory or injunctive relief.”); Yates v.

Buchanan v. City of Milwaukee

290 F. Supp. 2d 954 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Oct 27, 2003

Qualified Immunity Sullivan argues that even if he violated plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights summary judgment must be granted on the basis of qualified immunity. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions “generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga

921 F. Supp. 2d 835 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Feb 5, 2013

constitute.a violation of clearly established law.” … The question for the Court is whether the rights were clearly established to a reasonable person. The Court concludes they were, and denies qualified immunity.

Jeremy Nelson v. County of Wright James R. Hudek

162 F.3d 986 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 10, 1998

Government officials performing discretionary tasks are entitled to qualified immunity unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The standard was clearly established. 5 Whether Hudek is entitled to qualified immunity must be examined from the perspective of the situation as he understood it at the time. Anderson v.

Alexander v. City of Bessemer

142 So. 3d 543 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Oct 18, 2013

to so-called “qualified immunity” under federal law. … It is only “when an official’s conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known’” that ‘the official is not protected by qualified immunity.’ Id.

Daboul v. Board of Visitors of the College of William & Mary

64 Va. Cir. 499 · Norfolk County Circuit Court · Apr 10, 2002

action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. … Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery. ...

Eckmann v. Board of Education of Hawthorn School District No. 17

636 F. Supp. 1214 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 19, 1986

Having at least arguably violated a clearly established constitutional right of plaintiff, the Board members lose the benefits of a qualified immunity — “immunity from suit” — and are forced to proceed to trial to test the … Qualified immunity protects government officials only in cases where it cannot be said that their actions violated rights clearly established at the time that they acted.

Holton v. Mohon

684 F. Supp. 1407 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 8, 1987

Such a finding leads this Court to a discussion of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is available only to governmental officials performing discretionary functions. Harlow v. … Because the Fourth Amendment rule on warrantless arrests is “clearly established” law, the defense of qualified immunity is available only if a reasonable officer would have believed that probable cause existed to believe

Flores v. City of Palacios

381 F.3d 391 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 10, 2004

STEP TWO: OBJECTIVE REASONABLENESS IN LIGHT OF CLEARLY ESTABLISHED LAW For a right to be clearly established under the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, “[t]he contours of … the qualified immunity analysis.

Grant v. Winik

948 F. Supp. 2d 480 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 2013

Accordingly, using pepper spray under these circumstances did not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory law, and so the Court finds that Baran is entitled to qualified immunity on this issue. 3. … Under these circumstances, Winik’s use of deadly force did not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory law. Accordingly, Winik is entitled to qualified immunity.