Case law

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.

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).

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

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

Smith v. Wolfe

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 2020

State officials - 18 - have qualified immunity from claims for monetary relief if their conduct “does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable … As to the question of whether the right at issue was clearly established when the Defendants’ conduct took place, courts should not “define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” Id. at 716.

Hunt v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of New Mex.

338 F. Supp. 3d 1251 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 6, 2018

Clearly Established Law Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct " 'does not violate *1260 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Mullenix v. … Thus, they cannot be used to demonstrate "clearly established law" within the meaning of a qualified immunity analysis.

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

Sutherland v. Mizer

625 F. Supp. 2d 492 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · May 6, 2008

Inasmuch as he is the party who has the responsibility of challenging the qualified immunity defense, Sutherland has not sufficiently pled a violation of a clearly established right. … Because Sutherland has not sufficiently alleged the violation of a clearly established right, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for Count V.

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.

Richardson v. City of Antioch

722 F. Supp. 2d 1133 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 13, 2010

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Based on clearly established precedent, the Court also finds that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for the arrest of KC. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . 2.

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.

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

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.

Spencer v. Rau

542 F. Supp. 2d 583 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Oct 11, 2007

Qualified Immunity The Officers assert they are entitled to qualified immunity. … In order to establish the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity, a plaintiff must satisfy a two-part test: (1) under existing law, the plaintiff must allege a violation of an actual, clearly established constitutional

Martinez v. Simonetti

202 F.3d 625 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 4, 2000

Whether Officer Heinz-Faljean was a witness to the physical altercation is not clearly established in the present record. … light of clearly established law and the information the officer[ ] possessed.”

John v. County of Centre

80 F. Supp. 2d 437 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 2000

“Unless plaintiffs allegations state a claim of a violation of a clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” P.F. v. … Therefore, we find that plaintiffs cannot overcome defendants’ qualified immunity defense by showing that the challenged conduct violated rights that were clearly established at the time the conduct occurred.

Shaw v. Oconee County, Ga.

863 F. Supp. 1578 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Oct 11, 1994

Qualified Immunity The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has adopted an objective-reasonableness test for determining whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity. See Courson v. … Under this analysis, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) the law was not clearly established, or (2) the law was clearly established but the defendant did not violate the law. Id. n. 14.

Boris Mudd v. Jason Johnson (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 2015

[19] Mudd’s claim against Johnson is best resolved through the doctrine of qualified immunity. … We cannot conclude that the specific alleged rights at issue were clearly established at the time of Johnson’s alleged misconduct, and as a result Johnson is entitled to qualified immunity from Mudd’s Section

E-Z Mart Stores, Inc. v. Kirksey

885 F.2d 476 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 19, 1989

The officers are entitled to qualified immunity “unless their actions violated clearly established law.” Garionis, 827 F.2d at 308 (citations omitted). … Ordinarily, a qualified immunity defense will fail if, as here, the law was clearly established at the time the action occurred, “since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.”