Case law

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

Jacobs v. West Feliciana Sheriff's Dept.

228 F.3d 388 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 13, 2000

To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, we must determine: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the defendant's … the first hurdle in defeating the defendants' qualified immunity defense. 13 The second part of our qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the defendants' conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly

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.

E. Stephen Dean v. Thomas K. Byerley

354 F.3d 540 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 8, 2004

Therefore, Dean has satisfied the second hurdle necessary to survive summary judgment based upon qualified immunity by showing that the constitutional right was clearly established. … qualified immunity. 14 *559 III.

Molano v. Bezio

42 F. Supp. 3d 465 · District Court, W.D. New York · Apr 13, 2012

established” for purposes of qualified immunity. … established’ for the purpose of future qualified immunity cases involving similar fact patterns.”

Morales v. Weiss

709 F. App'x 95 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 24, 2018

Defendants “are entitled to qualified immunity if they can establish either that (1) a constitutional right was not violated or (2) the right was not clearly established.” Royal Crown Day Care LLC v. … Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 , 113 S.Ct. 2606 , 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993); and Weiss was entitled to qualified immunity for contacting ICE because that act did not violate any clearly established constitutional or statutory

Doane v. Helenville Mutual Insurance Co.

216 Wis. 2d 345 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Jan 29, 1998

Rather, the parties' *352 disagreement centers on whether Ehle qualifies as an "owner" entitled to immunity under the statute either because his shanty constitutes a statutory "structure," or because he is an "occupier," … CONCLUSION A portable ice shanty located on a frozen lake does not qualify as recreational "property" and is insufficient to establish its owner as an "occupant" of the lake entitled to recreational immunity.

Redwood v. Lierman

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 7, 2002

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that under the facts in the amended complaint, they are entitled to a qualified immunity from liability because the applicable legal standards were not clearly established at the time they … The majority's rule requiring a warrant is not only not clearly established, it is not the law. Qualified immunity applies.

Mark v. Shoen Edward J. Shoen v. Leonard Samuel Shoen Christina G. Shoen, Ronald J. Watkins, Witness-Appellant

48 F.3d 412 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 15, 1995

Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 , 92 S.Ct. 2646 , 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972), as establishing a qualified privilege for journalists against compelled disclosure of information gathered in the course of their work. … As a result, Leonard Shoen’s September 1991 statements, if any, regarding his attitude toward plaintiffs are not clearly relevant to an important issue in this litigation. 1 Although plaintiffs’ failure to establish clear

Isaiah Taylor v. Justin Schwarzhuber

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 19, 2025

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from monetary liability unless the law they ostensibly violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged offense. … The court awarded qualified immunity to Schwarzhuber and Rydzewski on Taylor’s initial stop and frisk claims be- cause Taylor did not provide cases showing the officers’ ac- tions violated clearly established law.

Seaman v. Karr

59 P.3d 701 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 20, 2002

Clearly Established Law To determine whether a federal right is clearly established, we look first to United States Supreme Court precedent and then to decisions of the controlling Circuit Court of Appeals. … For qualified immunity purposes, "clearly established" means: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.

Deutsch v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

737 F. Supp. 261 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 2, 1990

The question of whether a right is clearly established is one of law, Yalkut v. … The right the government official is alleged to have violated is “clearly established,” and hence beyond any qualified immunity, when the “contours” of the right are sufficiently unambiguous so that a reasonable official

Fuhr v. City of Seattle

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 7, 2026

CITY OF SEATTLE 3 established law that sets out a constitutional violation. Because no case clearly established a Fourth Amendment right violated by Zech, he was entitled to qualified immunity. … Because no case clearly established a Fourth Amendment right violated by Zech, he is entitled to qualified immunity. II. Other Claims Fuhr’s other claims also fail.

Cochran v. Folger

740 F. Supp. 2d 923 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Sep 16, 2010

clearly established constitutional law. … Qualified Immunity.

Lilly v. Lewiston-Porter Central School District

853 F. Supp. 2d 346 · District Court, W.D. New York · Dec 20, 2011

qualified immunity did not apply. … Then we consider if the violated right was clearly established at the time of the conduct....

Greffey v. State of Ala. Dept. of Corrections

996 F. Supp. 1368 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Mar 20, 1998

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity insulates governmental officials in their individual capacities from civil lawsuits, so long as the challenged discretionary conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory … were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions____The words ‘clearly established ... constitutional rights’ may not be used to read the defense of immunity out of federal tort law by the facile expedi *1386

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.

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.

Cannon v. Polk County/Polk County Sheriff

68 F. Supp. 3d 1267 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 18, 2014

Second, the court must determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id. … Even if the violated right was clearly established at the time of the violation, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if his mistake as to what the law requires is reasonable. Id. at 205, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Jennifer Harmon v. Second Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 13, 2025

The court concluded that the Government Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because Harmon failed to show that any constitutional violation was clearly established. … Because Harmon failed to show that the alleged substantive due process violations were clearly established, the Government Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for the § 1983 claims.