Case law

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.

Andersen v. McCotter

100 F.3d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 12, 1996

She also claims that the law was clearly established in this area, thereby precluding Defendants’ claims of qualified immunity. We agree. … Because the law in this area was clearly established in March 1994, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. REVERSED and REMANDED. - 15 -

Jonathan Davidson v. City of Stafford, Texas, et a

848 F.3d 384 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 7, 2017

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … On the second prong of the qualified immunity defense, recent Supreme Court decisions addressing claims for excessive force have “reiterate[d] the longstanding principle that ‘clearly established law’ should not be defined

Barts v. Joyner

865 F.2d 1187 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 1, 1989

qualified immunity because their conduct in March 1983 did not violate clearly established law. … immunity because they did not violate clearly established constitutional right); State v.

James E. Phillips, II v. WV DHHR d/b/a Mitchell Bateman Hospital

West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 18, 2020

rights or laws that were clearly established and of which a reasonable person would have known or whether those actions were fraudulent, malicious, or oppressive. … The circuit court applied established jurisprudence from this Court in finding that the DHHR was entitled to qualified immunity.

Horn v. City of Seat Pleasant, Md.

57 F. Supp. 2d 219 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 20, 1999

Id. “ ‘If the right was not clearly established at the relevant time or if a reasonable [official] might not have known that his or her conduct violated that right, the [official] is entitled to immunity.’ ” Id. … Therefore the Eight Circuit in these cases did not address the issue of qualified immunity.

Babb v. Lake City Community College

66 F.3d 270 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 5, 1995

is whether the facts show a violation of “clearly established” law. … “clearly established” law.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.