Case law

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

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

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.

Tamara Brand v. Kevin Casal

877 F.3d 1253 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 19, 2017

“Clearly Established” Law Having concluded that Deputy Pardinas’s conduct violated a constitutional right, the next question in our qualified immunity analysis is whether that constitutional right was “clearly established … Brand’s right to bodily privacy was clearly established. We affirm the District Court’s denial of qualified immunity on the Brands’ bodily-privacy claim. 17 IV.

Robinson v. Ash

374 F. Supp. 3d 1171 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 18, 2019

Defendant therefore does not receive the benefit of the arguable-probable-cause standard used to assess whether the right was "clearly established," the second step in the qualified immunity analysis. See Poulakis v. … App'x 523 , 526 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining that the "arguable probable cause" inquiry is part of the "clearly established" prong of qualified immunity).

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.

Martinez v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

300 F.3d 567 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 25, 2002

GOV’T CODE ANN. § 554; and whether Laura Martinez has shown violation of a clearly established constitutional right, thereby depriving the three individual Defendants of qualified immunity. … To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity, we apply a well-established, two-step analysis: whether the official violated a clearly established constitutional right; and, if he

Armstrong v. Ashley

918 F.3d 419 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 11, 2019

A decision on qualified immunity can be an appealable final decision, "but only to the extent that the appeal concerns the purely legal question whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the facts[.]" … Typically, this determination is a decision on "whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established." Behrens v.

Michael A. White v. Madeline Holmes Charles Rosenkoetter

21 F.3d 277 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 18, 1994

In their motion for summary judgment, Holmes and Rosenkoetter argued they did not violate any clearly established laws and are entitled to qualified immunity. 2 In a supplemental motion for summary judgment, the defendants … is entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Reid v. Pautler

36 F. Supp. 3d 1067 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jul 31, 2014

established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualifíed Immunity Analysis.

ABATE of Georgia, Inc. v. State of Georgia

137 F. Supp. 2d 1349 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Apr 4, 2001

To overcome qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must show that: (1) Defendants violated a federal constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Santamorena v. … In Lassi-ter, the Eleventh Circuit held that for a law to be clearly established in the qualified immunity context, “preexisting law must dictate, that is truly compel (not just suggest or allow or raise a question about)

Sisinia Pro v. Ronald Donatucci. Ronald Donatucci, Register of Wills

81 F.3d 1283 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 26, 1996

As we summarized in In re City of Philadelphia Litig.: If the law is not established clearly when an official acts, he is entitled to qualified immunity because he ‘could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent … to qualified immunity.

Ellsberg v. Mitchell

670 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 20, 1984

on the Supreme Court’s new qualified immunity test enunciated in Harlow v. … Harlow disposed of the “subjective” aspect of qualified immunity and held that courts should examine only the “objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to ‘clearly established’ law.”

United States v. Holcomb

132 F.4th 1118 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 27, 2025

As our qualified immunity cases make clear, an officer is immune from civil suit where the plaintiff’s rights were not “clearly established” at the time of his alleged misconduct. Ballentine v. … HOLCOMB circuit[,] . . . there still might not be clearly established case law in our circuit to withstand qualified immunity.” Id.

Brian Barlow v. Officer George Ground, I.D. 9129

943 F.2d 1132 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 5, 1991

The doctrine of qualified immunity does not apply if reasonable officers would have known they were violating clearly established Constitutional rights. See White v. Pierce County, 797 F.2d 812, 815 (9th Cir.1986). … It must decide “[wjhether a reasonable official would know that she is violating that clearly established law.” Id.

Torian v. City of Beckley

963 F. Supp. 565 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · May 7, 1997

Defendant Sweeney clearly is entitled to qualified immunity from liability in regard to the federal constitutional claim. … Law enforcement officers are immune from § 1983 liability arising from official discretionary acts that do not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

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.

Kebe v. Brown

161 F. Supp. 2d 634 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 12, 2001

granted qualified immunity. … Officers are “entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity if they can establish that reasonable officers could have believed that their actions were lawful in light of both clearly established law and

Helms v. Gamet

828 F. Supp. 819 · District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 6, 1993

Qualified Immunity Defendants claim that Officer Garnet is entitled to qualified immunity from suit because a reasonable officer in his position could have believed his actions were lawful. … legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken.

Stone-El v. Fairman

785 F. Supp. 711 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 17, 1991

We now turn to the issue of qualified immunity. B. … However, as the right in question was not clearly established in reference to the facts of this case, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. As such, we dismiss Stone-El’s amended complaint in its entirety.