Case law

Matthew Locke v. County of Hubbard

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 17, 2025

While I disagree with the court’s constitutional analysis, I need not resolve that inquiry as the case can be easily resolved under the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See Pearson v. … This does not constitute a violation of a clearly established right; therefore, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

State v. McQueen

293 Mich. App. 644 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 23, 2011

In addition, § 4(i) provides immunity for a “person” who assists a registered qualifying patient with “using or administering marihuana.” … Defendants do not claim immunity on the basis of being in the vicinity of the medical use of marijuana; they claim immunity on the basis of their assistance to registered qualifying patients with “using or administering”

Machelle Pearson v. MDOC

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 26, 2026

It also held that they could seek damages because the complaint alleged a violation of clearly established law to overcome any qualified-immunity defense. See id. at *5–6. … The Inmates also contend that they may rely on the clearly established “right to safe and sanitary conditions” to overcome qualified immunity. Appellees’ Br. 27.

Sanders v. City of Dothan

671 F. Supp. 2d 1263 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Nov 30, 2009

Under the “clearly established” prong of the qualified-immunity analysis, police officers are entitled to immunity from suit “unless the law pre-existing the [officerj’s supposedly wrongful act was already established to … immunity because that right was not clearly established.

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.

Marquez v. Gutierrez

322 F.3d 689 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 6, 2003

The qualified immunity inquiry has two parts: "(1) Was the law governing the state official's conduct clearly established? (2) Under that law could a reasonable state official have believed his conduct was lawful?" … Further, Marquez argues that a prison official cannot act maliciously and sadistically while, at the same time, reasonably believing that his actions conform to clearly established law.

Brown v. City of Golden Valley

534 F. Supp. 2d 984 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Feb 14, 2008

Zarrett argues that qualified immunity shields him from liability. … “Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a section 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would

Ways v. City of Lincoln

909 F. Supp. 1316 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Dec 13, 1995

Because this inquiry is fact intensive, “ ‘the asserted First Amendment right’ can rarely be considered ‘clearly established’ for purposes of the Harlow qualified immunity standard.” Id. (quoting Buzek v. … by definition be “clearly established.”

Muszik v. Town of Redington Shores, Florida

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 20, 2024

Callahan, 55 U.S. 223, 236 (2009) (courts considering qualified immunity are permitted to address whether a constitutional right is clearly established before determining whether it was violated). … A plaintiff seeking to meet her burden under the second step of the qualified immunity analysis can demonstrate that a right or law was clearly established in three ways. See, e.g., Loftus v.

Hinton v. City of Elwood

997 F.2d 774 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 29, 1993

Since this conclusion is sufficient to support the district court’s finding of qualified immunity, we need not reach the issue of whether the law was clearly established at the time Myer and White’s conduct occurred. … In Medina we determined that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established, 960 F.2d at 1498-99 , and in Watson we remanded for a finding on that *783 issue, 857

McDonald v. Kempthorne

831 F. Supp. 2d 313 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 23, 2011

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from [personal] liability for civil damages insofar as  - 21 - their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … and whether that right was clearly established.

Torres v. Runyon

80 F. App'x 594 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 6, 2003

If the official violated a constitutional right, he or she nonetheless may be entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established such that a reasonable official “would understand that what he is doing … The next prong of the qualified immunity analysis is “ ‘a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established?

Robert P. Brennan v. Township of Northville, Lawrence Demeter and Fred Yankee, Individually and in Their Official Capacities

78 F.3d 1152 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 26, 1996

Lawrence Demeter and Fred Yankee appeal the denial of qualified immunity in this action premised on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … II A denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds may be reviewed on interlocutory appeal under Mitchell v.

Megan Winfrey v. Keith Pikett

872 F.3d 640 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 29, 2017

He contends that the district court erred in denying him qualified immunity because the scent lineups did not violate Megan’s clearly established constitutional rights for two reasons. … violated clearly established law.”

Christopher Lee Prosser v. Davis L. Ross, Co I

70 F.3d 1005 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 1, 1995

Ross is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated Prosser’s “clearly established” constitutional rights. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982); Johnson v. … Ross is therefore entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Robert Wilson v. David Spain, Mike Jones

209 F.3d 713 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 5, 2000

from excessive force while detained by law enforcement officials and that the right has been clearly established. … Since the right to be free from excessive force in the context of an arrest has been clearly established for some time, other circuits have simply held that, in excessive-force eases, the qualified-immunity inquiry and the

Van De Yacht v. the City of Wausau

661 F. Supp. 2d 1026 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Oct 13, 2009

on the ground of qualified immunity. … one is enough to establish the defense of qualified immunity.

Sollenberger v. Sollenberger

173 F. Supp. 3d 608 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 25, 2016

clearly established constitutional right. … Sept. 29, 2006) (stating R.C, 311.05 establishes qualified immunity for a sheriff).

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

Steven Hyer v. City and County of Honolulu

118 F.4th 1044 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 23, 2024

The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of qualified immunity with respect to the use of a police dog because the law was not clearly established.  HYER V. … Indeed, “[e]ven if a government official violates a constitutional right, the official is entitled to qualified immunity unless the violated right was clearly established at the time of the incident.” Andrews v.