Case law

Morris v. Dearborne

181 F.3d 657 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 16, 1999

Dearborne contends that she is entitled to qualified immunity because her actions did not violate clearly established law and that her actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances. … and the Supreme Court, a defendant’s defense of qualified immunity, based on a claim that the right to family integrity was not clearly established, will fail.

Colon-Andino v. Toledo-Davila

634 F. Supp. 2d 220 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 13, 2009

“In administering the [Supreme] Court’s test, this circuit has tended to list separately the two sub-parts of the ‘clearly established’ prong along with the first prong and, as a result, has articulated the qualified immunity … Defendants offer what is clearly a template ("boiler plate”) summary of the law on qualified immunity that is outdated- and fails to apply the qualified immunity analysis to the facts of this case adequately.

York v. Purkey

14 F. App'x 628 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 20, 2001

Therefore, in deciding whether law was clearly established for the purpose of qualified immunity, we look for decisions that involve positions with the same or similar statutory duties. Id. In McCloud v. … The Court wrote: If the law was clearly established, the [qualified] immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

Monica L. Moore v. Gwinnett County, and Xyz Company, and John Doe, Jointly and Severally, J.O. Meadows

967 F.2d 1495 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 6, 1992

According to this doctrine, “public officials performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified [or good faith] immunity from civil damages liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … On the basis of that analysis, we disagree with the district court’s conclusion and find that qualified immunity clearly attaches to Officer Meadows’s challenged conduct. I.

Russell v. Scott

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 19, 2026

The District Court concluded that Scott had not established his entitlement to qualified immunity because a reasonable jury could conclude that his actions violated Russell’s clearly established Fourteenth Amendment rights … Clearly Established Finally, we turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether it was clearly established at the time of the incident that Scott’s conduct 12 We further note that,

Richard Lemarbe v. Jerome J. Wisneski, Sharon Fairbanks Dennis Straub

266 F.3d 429 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 19, 2001

such violated right was clearly established. … Clearly Established Right We also conclude that Le-Marbe has successfully proven that the allegedly violated right was clearly established.

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.

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

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.

Comair, Inc. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Airport Corp.

295 S.W.3d 91 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Oct 1, 2009

Despite the frequency of opinions on the subject from this Court, the law of sovereign immunity, and the related doctrines of governmental immunity, official immunity, and qualified official immunity, is still difficult to … Under this test, the Court concluded, “our constitutional fathers would not view this activity as qualifying for sovereign immunity.” Id.

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.

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

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.

Williams v. Kaufman County

86 F. Supp. 2d 586 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 7, 2000

Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue. … Before this standard, the parameters of this right were not clearly established or defined. Since these parameters were not clearly defined in April 1995, Sheriff Harris is entitled to 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).

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.

Transcare Maryland, Inc. v. Murray

431 Md. 225 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 22, 2013

The County noted that, while the firefighter was clearly immune under the Good Samaritan Act, “[t]he volunteer fire department, however, is a private nonprofit corporation which does not appear to have the statutory immunity … Act, regardless of whether the company’s employee may qualify for immunity under the statute.

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.