Case law

Williams v. United States

348 F. Supp. 3d 450 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 20, 2017

In short, qualified immunity clearly obtains here. … Williams' rights were "clearly established" at the time of the alleged violation.

Locurto v. Safir

264 F.3d 154 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 27, 2001

Defendants further asserted they were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. … In such a case, the qualified immunity doctrine focuses only on whether the government official’s actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law, without regard for possible subjective malice.

Ferreira v. Town of East Hampton

56 F. Supp. 3d 211 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 4, 2014

However, in holding that government actors enjoyed qualified immunity for conducting a war-rantless abatement of a public nuisance, the Second Circuit has held that Tyler did not clearly establish a warrant requirement to … Qualified Immunity Finally, Narvilas, Jilnicki, Schirrippa, Glogg, and Grenci assert the defense of qualified immunity.

Tribble v. Gardner

860 F.2d 321 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 25, 1988

The defendants in that case moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … established rights. 9 Therefore, we hold that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the district court was correct in denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity

El Paso Independent School District, Dr. Lorenzo Garcia and Mark Mendoza v. Michael McIntyre and Laura McIntyre, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Children, K. M., L. M., C. M., M. M., and L. M.

Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Aug 6, 2014

and qualified immunity. … The test for qualified immunity requires the court to engage in a two part inquiry: (1) whether a public official’s conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) whether the right was “clearly established

Brooks v. Northwood Little League, Inc.

327 S.C. 400 · Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Jun 9, 1997

Some courts have focused on the nature of the land itself and have established prerequisites to immunity, namely that the land qualifying for protection is: (1) rural, (2) undeveloped, (3) appropriate for the type of activities … The plain language of our recreational use statute’s provisions clearly protects the Respondents because it grants immunity to “landowners.” 7 S.C.Code Ann. §§ 27-3-10 to 27-3-70; see also T.W.

Majdalani v. Auburn University (CONSENT)

District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 26, 2024

prong of qualified immunity. … to qualified immunity” by establishing that the Defendant violated a right that was clearly established at the time of the violation).

Willie Bigford, Jr. v. Joe Max Taylor, Individually and as Sheriff of Galveston County, Texas

896 F.2d 972 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 23, 1990

action generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action ... assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … For the legal rules to be considered “clearly established,” the “contours” of the right alleged to have been violated “must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates

Carswell v. Borough of Homestead

381 F.3d 235 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 20, 2004

Murphy, 274 F.3d ruling on qualified immunity. … facts material to the qualified immunity violation of excessive force.

Singleton v. Cannizzaro

372 F. Supp. 3d 389 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Feb 28, 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 *411 conduct." 71 " … immunity from such claims because no constitutional violation occurred and, even if it did, the Defendants did not violate a "clearly established" right.

Murphy v. Goss

103 F. Supp. 3d 1234 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 16, 2015

Standards for Qualified Immunity Under Section 1983 Defendants also contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … “whether federal rights asserted by a plaintiff were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178, 1183 (9th Cir.2003). George v.

Tucker v. City Of Richmond

388 F.3d 216 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 10, 2005

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials who perform discretionary functions from civil liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Assuming that "a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties' submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.

Estate of Gaither v. District of Columbia

833 F. Supp. 2d 110 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 19, 2011

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from suit unless a plaintiff alleges facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … qualified immunity appropriate.

Stonefield v. Lopez

District Court, D. Colorado · Jul 29, 2019

“Individual defendants named in a § 1983 action may raise a defense of qualified immunity, which shields public officials from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … In a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that: (1) a constitutional violation occurred; and (2) that the constitutional right that was violated was clearly established

Zuchel v. Spinharney

890 F.2d 273 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 27, 1989

Runner, 854 F.2d 374 (10th Cir.1988): Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects .government officials from personal liability unless their actions violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person … Officer Spinharney concedes that Zu-chel’s right to be free from excessive force is a clearly established right. Opening Brief of Appellant at 24.

Maewal v. Adventist Health Systems/Sunbelt, Inc.

868 S.W.2d 886 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 8, 1994

Appellant contends appellees failed to provide written notice as required by the act and therefore fail to qualify for immunity. We reject this contention. … Second, appellant contends appellees failed to establish lack of malice, an affirmative defense, as a matter of law and do not qualify for immunity. Texas Medical Practice Act.

Linda DeVooght v. City of Warren, Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 5, 2025

On appeal, Dwyer contends that he didn’t violate DeVooght’s clearly established First Amendment rights, so he should receive qualified immunity. … We have repeatedly held that a public employee’s right to engage in protected speech without retaliation is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. See Buddenberg v.

Gaffey v. Illinois Dept of Juvenile Justice

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 31, 2021

Qualified immunity protects public officials from damages liability unless the evidence shows “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the … The Court finds Plaintiff’s argument against qualified immunity to be flawed, however, as it frames “clearly established” law at too high a level of generality.

Madden v. Regional University System

73 F. Supp. 3d 1341 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Dec 24, 2014

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials ... from damages unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Elder v. … To rebut a defendant’s qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct

Robert D. Mastroianni v. Michael J. Bowers, Patrick D. Deering, Joe B. Jackson, Jr., Weyland Yeomans

74 F.3d 236 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 5, 1996

immunity as a defense, and (2) the issue on appeal is whether the undisputed facts show a violation of clearly established law. … to determining whether the law supposedly violated was clearly established.