Case law

Harrison v. State

203 So. 3d 126 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · Dec 18, 2015

Absent a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary, the language of the statute is conclusive. … We first note that Harrison is not entitled to any relief on his claim that he presented sufficient evidence during trial and after trial to establish that he was immune from prosecution.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Buckley v. BARBOUR COUNTY, ALA.

624 F. Supp. 2d 1335 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 15, 2008

An official is not entitled to qualified immunity if (1) the official’s conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) the violation was “ ‘clearly established.’ ” Id. (quoting Saucier v. … Gamble thus fails the first prong of the qualified immunity test. The violation was also “clearly established,” placing Gamble on fair notice of an unconstitutional violation.

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

Debera MacE Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Jacob Vincent Revill, Deceased v. City of Palestine Pat Henderson

333 F.3d 621 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 24, 2003

Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … Claims of qualified immunity require a two-step analysis.

Sandra Outler v. Kelly Cooper

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 10, 2025

Cooper argues that we have jurisdiction because this appeal presents issues of law re- lating to his qualified-immunity defense. … However, Cooper argues in his merits brief that, even if he violated the Eighth Amendment, that violation was not clearly established at the relevant time, USCA11 Case: 25-11522 Document: 29-2 Date

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.

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.

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.

Charles Ivey v. Pat Hamlin

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Mar 18, 2002

violate the clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … When a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the rights he or she is asserting have been clearly established. Perkins v.

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.

Marcelino Alvarez-Victoriano v. City of Waterloo, Iowa, C.J. Nichols, In His/Her Individual and Official Capacity, and Waterloo Police Department

Supreme Court of Iowa · Jan 6, 2023

First, Iowa Code section 670.4A(1)(a) (2022) provides qualified immunity to employees or officers subject to claims arising under the IMTCA: 1. … The right, privilege, or immunity secured by law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation, or at the time of the alleged deprivation the state of the law was not sufficiently clear

James v. Price

602 F. Supp. 843 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 21, 1985

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), a government official performing a discretionary function is shielded by qualified immunity unless his actions violated “clearly established statutory or … Operating on the assumption that the right to be free from malicious prosecution was not a clearly established right, we found that the *846 state officers in this case were entitled to rely on the qualified immunity defense

Clairmont v. Sound Mental Health

632 F.3d 1091 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 19, 2011

The district court held, in the alternative, that “Clairmont’s First Amendment right was not so ‘clearly established’ as to preclude qualified immunity for Ms. Wilson.” … SOUND MENTAL HEALTH immunity. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. “If the right was not clearly established at the time of the violation, the official is entitled to qualified immunity.”

Williams v. Morgan

710 F. Supp. 1080 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Jan 5, 1989

Under the objective standard, the immunity defense is unavailable to the defendant “if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by [him] was clearly established at the time of [his] challenged conduct, if [he] knew or … The question becomes, therefore, whether he forfeited that immunity if he engaged in conduct which he knew or should have known would infringe a “clearly established” constitutional right enjoyed by the plaintiff.

Warren v. Keane

937 F. Supp. 301 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 10, 1996

Nor are defendants entitled to the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … To establish the defense of qualified immunity, defendants must show either that their “conduct did not violate ‘clearly established rights’ of which a reasonable person would have known, or that it was ‘objectively reasonable