Case law

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.”

Knighton v. Benton County, MS

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 6, 2026

Qualified Immunity When considering a qualified immunity defense, we must determine whether the defendant violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights and, if so, whether defendant violated clearly established law. … And it is clearly established. Good v.

Bordas v. Washtenaw County

1 F. Supp. 2d 680 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 2, 1998

A claim of qualified immunity depends on whether the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. Id. at 638-40 ; Harlow v. … To defeat a motion for summary judgment based on a claim of qualified immunity in the Sixth Circuit, a plaintiff must establish two things.

Hansen v. Bennett

948 F.2d 397 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 27, 1991

If Bennett was attempting to suppress Hansen’s speech on the basis of its content, then he violated clearly established rights and is not entitled to qualified immunity. Collinson v. … If, on the other hand, he was enforcing an appropriately limited time, place, and manner restriction, then he did not violate clearly established rights, Jones v.

Livingston v. Luken

151 F. App'x 470 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 26, 2005

“According to the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … established federal law so as to overcome Appellants’ assertion of qualified immunity.

Smith v. Smith

589 F.3d 736 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 28, 2009

was clearly established." … In evaluating Nurse Smith’s motion to dismiss and her claim to qualified immunity, the district court found that "the general Eighth Amendment right at issue was clearly estab- lished at the time of the events alleged in

Lenell Geter v. James Fortenberry

882 F.2d 167 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 5, 1989

We examine the plaintiffs’ factual allegations only to determine whether they would be sufficient, if proven, to make out a violation of clearly-established law. 3 II. … However, in Geter I we held that these same allegations were substantial enough to “remove the cloak of qualified immunity”: “[A] police officer cannot avail himself of a qualified immunity defense if he procures false identification

David McNair v. Collin Pratt

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 3, 2025

In denying qualified immunity, the district court resolved the legal question of whether Pratt’s conduct violated clearly established law, giving us the opportunity to review immediately its resolution of that issue. … In this case, we can begin and end our analysis with the second step of the qualified- immunity analysis, because we hold that Pratt’s conduct did not violate McNair’s clearly established rights.

Vaughn v. Soltis

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 30, 2023

In the qualified immunity context, “[t]he sources of clearly established law to be considered are limited. … Here, the Court proceeds directly to the clearly established step of the qualified immunity analysis: whether it was clearly established at the time of Vaughn’s encounter with the deputies that the

Schatz Family v. Lynne Geirer

346 F.3d 1157 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 16, 2003

-3-  The district court announced the proper standard for addressing qualified immunity at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage – whether immunity is established on the face of the … However, we take this opportunity to suggest that district courts clearly address the qualified immunity issue."), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 946 (1993).

Smith v. King

615 So. 2d 69 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Mar 19, 1993

The concept of qualified or substantive governmental immunity as a defense against tort liability under certain circumstances is well established in the law of this State. … Having concluded that seclusion was called for, Gibson followed established procedures.

Wilson v. Lamp

142 F. Supp. 3d 793 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Nov 3, 2015

Qualified Immunity For Excessive Force The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If’deciding the issue of qualified immunity now, I would resolve that the law is clearly established, based on the Fifth,' Seventh, Eighth,' Ninth, and Tenth Circuit cases cited in Section III(C) of* this Opinion and Order

Moore v. City of Wynnewood

57 F.3d 924 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 13, 1995

were not clearly established. … First Amendment rights were clearly established, and Sanders, therefore, would be entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.

Ricky Tatum v. Willie Robinson

858 F.3d 544 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 30, 2017

The district court denied Robinson qualified immunity. Robinson appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, see Mitchell v. … To overcome an assertion of qualified immunity, a plaintiff “must present sufficient facts to show not only (1) that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, but also (2) that the right was clearly established

Washington v. Buraker

322 F. Supp. 2d 702 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jun 23, 2004

If the answer to that threshold question is yes, the officer may still be entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established at the time of the events at issue. Clem v. … established now, and was clearly established in 1983.

Potera-Haskins v. Gamble

519 F. Supp. 2d 1110 · District Court, D. Montana · Sep 28, 2007

This examination, in turn, invokes the Court’s obligation to address and resolve the threshold issue of Defendants’ claim of qualified immunity. 6 Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity is ‘an entitlement not to stand trial … Finally, “[i]f the law did not put the [employer] on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.”

Thomson v. Salt Lake County

584 F.3d 1304 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 27, 2009

Kobayashi, 581 F.3d 1304, 1307 (11th Cir.2009). 2 “Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 816 (citing Anderson v. … An officer using force in the course of a seizure of a citizen is entitled to qualified immunity unless the level of force violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law.

Bruner v. Cassidy

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 8, 2026

Clearly established that it was unreasonable Even if their conduct is deemed unreasonable in the instant case, officers are still entitled to qualified immunity if the law did not clearly establish that the conduct … This use of force was excessive, and the law clearly established it was a constitutional violation at the time, meaning the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Meas v. City and County of San Francisco

681 F. Supp. 2d 1128 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 9, 2010

A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and whether such right was clearly established such that it would be clear … Here, defendants argue that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity as to the false arrest and malicious prosecution claims because none of their actions violated clearly established law.

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Preston

472 F. Supp. 2d 16 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 30, 2007

third prongs [of the qualified immunity test].” 469 F.3d at 168. … The plaintiff argues that the defendants were on notice that their strip search policy violated clearly established law because “closely analogous cases” clearly established that policies permitting strip searches conducted