Case law

Griess v. Colorado

841 F.2d 1042 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 15, 1988

The Supreme Court has indicated that when the issue with which we are concerned, i.e,, whether constitutional rights allegedly violated were “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity under Harlow v. … Because the test for qualified immunity turns on whether a right is clearly established, courts should ordinarily determine the existence and character of the underlying constitutional violation(s) before proceeding to the

Wheeler v. City of Lansing

677 F. Supp. 2d 965 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jan 6, 2010

“Ordinarily, a Supreme Court or Sixth Circuit [Court of Appeals] decision on point is necessary” to clearly establish the right in the relevant context and defeat qualified immunity. Reynolds v. … On qualified immunity analysis, this court’s duty is to ascertain what our Circuit’s clearly established law was on the date of the challenged search.

Babcock v. State

116 Wash. 2d 596 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1991

Lack of malice is necessary but not sufficient to establish qualified i immunity under Guffey . Caseworkers cannot claim even a qualified immunity when they fail to follow statutory procedures. … We do not think that ex parte orders can establish quasi-judicial immunity for those carrying them out. Ex parte orders do not offer sufficient procedural protections to warrant the establishment of absolute immunity.

Schmidt v. Gray

399 F. App'x 925 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 26, 2010

Qualified Immunity Gray’s first two claims on appeal attack the district court’s qualified immunity analysis. … “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from civil liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

ELENE H. v. County of Los Angeles

220 Cal. App. 3d 1445 · California Court of Appeal · May 2, 1990

Defendants contend that their conduct was totally immunized and, if not totally immunized, was within the range of qualified immunity for law enforcement officers recognized by federal law. (Malley v. … Clearly the behavior of a law enforcement officer which is grossly incompetent or demonstrates knowing disregard for established legal rights is not protected by qualified immunity. *1454 In the case at bench, the defendants

Robbins v. Regents of University of California

25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 851 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 2005

The trial court agreed that Suris was entitled to immunity, finding there was no evidence of a constitutional violation (and even if there was such a violation, it was not one of clearly established law), by virtue of LaVine … If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquires concerning qualified immunity.

Loumiet v. United States of America

255 F. Supp. 3d 75 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 13, 2017

, and qualified immunity. 1. … basis of qualified immunity.

Briaheen Thomas v. Tice

943 F.3d 145 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 12, 2019

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … As the Majority notes, qualified immunity does not shield a government official where she has “violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Reichle v.

Wesby v. District of Columbia

816 F.3d 96 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 8, 2016

We and the dissent agree on two other clearly established points of law. 1. … As discussed in the court’s opinion and in the text, supra 98-99, that is a misstatement of clearly established law.

Castillo v. City of Weslaco

388 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 13, 2004

Finding that the Officers sufficiently alleged a violation of clearly established federal law, the district court denied the Appellants’ motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity and scheduled the case for … II Qualified immunity is appropriate if “the defendant’s actions were ‘objectively reasonable’ with reference to ‘clearly established law’ at the time of the conduct in question.” Petta v.

Summar ex rel. Summar v. Bennett

157 F.3d 1054 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 14, 1998

City of Southfield, 995 F.2d 1331 (6th Cir.1993), for example, this court generally explained that “[t]he right to be free from excessive force is a clearly established right,” yet affirmed a district court’s denial of qualified … precedent to the rejection of qualified immunity.

Niles v. Town of Wakefield

172 F. Supp. 3d 429 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 24, 2016

Qualified Immunity ■ The First Circuit recently described the contours of the qualified immunity defense in detail as follows: The rules for granting qualified immunity are well established, “The doctrine of qualified immunity … ” subject to qualified immunity).

Savage v. Westcott

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 29, 2025

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity unless “(1) the plaintiff alleged a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) that right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged violation.” 8 “We may address … To survive a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, Savage must show both that the Defendants’ actions violated his right to due process and that this right was clearly established at the time of Defendants’ actions

Hanse v. Phillips

276 Ga. App. 558 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Nov 29, 2005

Supreme Court has held that “qualified immunity is an entitlement not to stand trial rather than a mere defense to liability.” Id. at 124 (1). … And this “provides persuasive reasons for resolving the issue of... qualified immunity as early as possible in the legal proceedings.” Id.

Sweatt v. Blackman Township Officer Brent Doxtader

986 F. Supp. 2d 886 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 11, 2013

The doctrine of qualified immunity generally protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … excessive force. 4 The Court finds that this right was clearly established.

Eidson v. Owens

515 F.3d 1139 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 13, 2008

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … But if a violation can be shown, we must then consider whether the right was clearly established. Id. A.

Grant v. Davis

537 So. 2d 7 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Nov 23, 1988

This defendant's function clearly required due care rather than difficult decision making. On the other hand, we accepted the claim of immunity in Gill v. … The duty to inspect the roads is an affirmative duty but one that also involves a type of discretion giving rise to qualified immunity.

Misty Kingsland v. City of Miami

382 F.3d 1220 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 31, 2004

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly 11 We recall that probable cause requires that “‘ … “Once the defendant establishes that he was acting within his discretionary authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate.” Id.

Richardson v. Dist. of Columbia

322 F. Supp. 3d 175 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 24, 2018

He is therefore entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity. … As the Court explained, Smith himself is protected from this allegation by qualified immunity-no clearly established law required him to institute such policies.

Ronald K. Drewitt v. Fred L. Pratt Pizza Hut of America, Inc., City of Norfolk, Party-In-Interest

999 F.2d 774 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 22, 1993

Accordingly, because no clearly established constitutional right was violated, the district court held that Officer Pratt was clearly entitled to qualified immunity on such claim. … Immunity may thus be established either on the basis that the right allegedly (or actually) violated was not at the time one "clearly established,” or that, though "clearly established,” (and violated), it was one that a