Case law

People v. Kolanek; People v. King

491 Mich. 382 · Michigan Supreme Court · May 31, 2012

• Require Department of Community Health to establish an identification card system for patients qualified to use marijuana and individuals qualified to grow marijuana. … Registered patients who do not qualify for immunity under § 4, as well as unregistered persons, are entitled to assert in a criminal prosecution the affirmative defense of medical use of marijuana under § 8 of the MMMA,

Billie Hovick v. Darci Patterson

37 F.4th 511 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 16, 2022

established.2 “We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity.” … Our qualified-immunity inquiry “involv[es] two questions—whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right, and whether that right was clearly established.” Id.

Williams v. County of Alameda

26 F. Supp. 3d 925 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 10, 2014

An officer will receive qualified immunity if a reasonable officer could have believed the action to be lawful, in 'light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed. Id. … Even an officer who reasonably, but mistakenly, believed that his conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right will receive qualified immunity. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 205-206, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

George Trammell v. Kevin Fruge

868 F.3d 332 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 17, 2017

Officers Fruge, Garza, Ingles, and Neveu Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Qualified immunity as to this claim is thus appropriate. .

Burge v. Ferguson

619 F. Supp. 2d 1225 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 16, 2008

established Fourth Amendment right. 12 Accordingly, qualified immunity is unavailable at this stage. … But see Thomas, 463 F.3d at 293-94 (concluding that “a plaintiff has no obligation to plead a violation of clearly established law in order to avoid dismissal on qualified immunity grounds.”). 8 ."

Nation v. State, Dept. of Correction

144 Idaho 177 · Idaho Supreme Court · Mar 29, 2007

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Next, did the conduct of the party asserting qualified immunity violate a clearly established right of the party claiming the violation? Finally, was the conduct of the party asserting qualified immunity reasonable?

Gustafson v. Thomas

75 F. Supp. 3d 876 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 16, 2014

City of Chic., 865 F.2d 827 , 846 (7th Cir. 1989) (examining only cases decided before the events at issue in analyzing how clearly established the law was for qualified immunity). … Whatever the implications of potential violations of Illinois law, these alleged violations have no bearing on whether the law was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. .

Bills v. Aseltine

52 F.3d 596 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 26, 1995

The court noted that government officials are entitled to qualified immunity while performing discretionary functions so long as their actions do not violate clearly established rights of which any reasonable official would … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Ramirez v. City of Buena Park

560 F.3d 1012 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 25, 2009

“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … Under Saucier’s second prong, we ask “whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

McCabe v. Caleel

739 F. Supp. 387 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 30, 1990

action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. … Application of the qualified immunity concept to McCabe’s situation is simple: It has not been “clearly established” even now, let alone when Board’s members acted back in the late 1970s, that the fact (if it is a fact) of

Rettele v. Los Angeles County

186 F. App'x 765 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 21, 2006

Having determined that Plaintiffs’ factual allegations, if true, may establish a constitutional violation, we turn our attention to whether the law was clearly established, such that a reasonable officer would have known … to qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage.

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

Moore v. City of Wynnewood

57 F.3d 924 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 13, 1995

were not clearly established. … Qualified immunity shields Sanders from liability and the burden of having to go to trial unless he violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Hall v. Trochessett

105 F.4th 335 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 20, 2024

the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. … We will now determine whether there was a clearly established right.

Margaret Byers v. Gordon Painter

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 17, 2026

The burden of establishing qualified immunity rests on the party seeking the shield of that immunity. Id. … “That means that we may grant qualified immunity [solely] on the ground that the purported right was not clearly established[.]” Id.

Johnnie Savory v. Allen Andrews

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 14, 2026

The officers in this case are entitled to qualified immunity only if their interrogation techniques did not violate Savory’s clearly established right to due process. Rivas-Villegas v. … Regardless, focusing on this difference is too myopic an approach given that Savory need only present similar—not identical—cases to satisfy qualified immunity’s “clearly established” requirement.

Hogan ex rel. J.H. v. County of Lewis

929 F. Supp. 2d 130 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 8, 2013

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials acting in their capacity from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not “violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively reasonable … The party invoking qualified immunity bears the burden of offering proof that it was objectively reasonable for her to believe that her actions did not violate a clearly established right and that she is entitled to qualified

Heggs v. Grant

73 F.3d 317 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 22, 1996

On the appeal of a nonfinal order denying qualified immunity, we have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to decide whether the conduct complained of violated "clearly established statutory or … No clearly established law required him to take further measures to protect her.

In Re COVID-Related Restrictions on Religious Services

Superior Court of Delaware · Aug 28, 2023

“[E]ven where the law is clearly established and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is clearly defined,” the qualified immunity defense may still shield officials from liability.84 “[I]f it was objectively … clearly established right.

Ciolino v. Eastman

128 F. Supp. 3d 366 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 3, 2015

Second Prong: Clearly Established Right The disputes of fact discussed above also preclude the Court from finding that the constitutional rights allegedly violated were not “clearly established,” such that Defendants would … be entitled to qualified immunity on the second prong of the test.