Case law

Doss v. Gilkey

649 F. Supp. 2d 905 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jul 28, 2009

The defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because: a. … clearly established.

Garcia v. Orta

47 F.4th 343 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 2022

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects public officials acting in their individual capacity from lawsuits and liability for damages under Section 1983 unless their conduct violates a clearly established … To overcome an asserted qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must show “sufficient facts to ‘make out a violation of a constitutional right’” and “‘the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of

Schaefer v. Whitted

121 F. Supp. 3d 701 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Aug 5, 2015

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Brumfield v. … However, to surmount qualified immunity, Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating the Second Amendment right Officer Whitted is alleged to have violated is “clearly established” in the more “particularized sense,” such that

Ryan Steinhoff v. Matthew Malovrh

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 24, 2026

The district court further concluded that Detective Kowalczyk was entitled to qualified immunity because Steinhoff did not identify clearly established law “prohibiting the use of a takedown under the dynamic cir- cumstances … As for the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, a constitutional right is clearly established if existing prece- dent “place[s] the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” Rivas-Villegas v.

Morris v. Wallace Community College-Selma

125 F. Supp. 2d 1315 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Jan 8, 2001

Qualified Immunity. … “In this circuit, the law can be 'clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Fenner v. Suthers

194 F. Supp. 2d 1146 · District Court, D. Colorado · Apr 2, 2002

to exist, has not heretofore been clearly established. … Defendants argue that the case must still be dismissed, because they are entitled to qualified immunity for another reason: there is simply no clearly established constitutional right to treatment for hepatitis C.

Carew v. Centracchio

17 F. Supp. 2d 56 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Mar 4, 1998

Such officials have qualified immunity if they can prove either of the following: “the federal law allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, or ... at summary judgment, there is … no genuine dispute of material fact that would prevent a finding that the defendants’ actions, with regard to applying or following such clearly established law, were objectively *59 reasonable.”

Raymond D. Jackson v. Duncan A. McIntosh David Victorino

90 F.3d 330 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 18, 1996

The doctors moved for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion. The doctors appeal. … ANALYSIS The doctors contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law requiring *332 them to provide a kidney transplant to a prisoner on dialysis.

Eggleton v. Gluch

717 F. Supp. 1230 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 13, 1989

I conclude that qualified immunity does not apply in either instance because the law was clearly defined in each of these areas. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Liebe v. Norton

157 F.3d 574 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 1, 1998

"Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known." Yowell v. … To withstand the application of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must assert a violation of a constitutional or statutory right; that right must have been clearly established at the time of the violation; and, given the facts

Williams v. CITY OF FRANKLIN, TENN.

586 F. Supp. 2d 890 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Nov 18, 2008

If the plaintiff has established a violation of a constitutional right, the second step in the qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the violated right was clearly established. Id. … was clearly established); Boger v.

Mooneyham v. BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EX'RS

802 So. 2d 200 · Supreme Court of Alabama · May 11, 2001

The defendants argue that they are immune from suit as to this claim because, they say, Mooneyham has not alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. We agree. … The threshold question for determining whether the doctrine of qualified immunity applies to a given constitutional claim is whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly recognized constitutional right.

Davis v. Tarrant County, Tex.

565 F.3d 214 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 8, 2009

in their judicial capacities when they established and implemented the appointment policy and denied Davis’s application; (2) that the defendant judges were immune from suit in their official capacities under the Eleventh … The 2001 amendment established a much more detailed procedural regime for the appointment of counsel in criminal cases that requires judges in each county to establish standardized countywide procedures.

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.

McLin v. Twenty-First Judicial Dist

79 F.4th 411 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 16, 2023

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability in their individual capacity so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … immunity analysis to address first.38 Our inquiry starts and ends with the clearly established prong, whether Chief Judge Morrison violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Lowther v. Children Youth and Family Department

101 F.4th 742 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 7, 2024

Miles are entitled to qualified immunity because the Lowthers had not shown the alleged violation was clearly established. … We affirmed based on qualified immunity, concluding the law was not clearly established. Id. at 1135–38.

Alston v. City of Detroit Police Officer

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 15, 2024

conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … They develop no argument as to the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Tyquan Stewart v. Parkview Hospital

940 F.3d 1013 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 22, 2019

Police officers enjoy immunity from liability for conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or consti‐ tutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. … In these circumstances, Stewart cannot establish that the officers violated a right clearly established under the Fourth Amendment, and qualified immunity ap‐ plies. Id.; see also Wilson v.

Hall v. Ryan

957 F.2d 402 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 28, 1992

Judge Baker noted that qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 , 97 S.Ct. 285 , 50 L.Ed.2d 251 , the standard of conduct imposed on defendants with respect to the care of people in custody was clearly established, so that the police officers' qualified immunity defense

Spivey v. Elliott

41 F.3d 1497 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 11, 1995

The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if it is determined that the legal precedents do not reveal that the defendants violated "clearly established … The opinion is fully reaffirmed, however, on the holding that there was no constitutional duty clearly established at the time of the sexual assault, so the defendant officials were properly entitled to qualified immunity