Case law

Constance Westfall v. Jose Luna

903 F.3d 534 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 13, 2018

As is well-established, “qualified immunity means immunity from having to stand trial, not simply immunity from monetary liability.” Id. … “[I]t is clearly established that ‘a consent which waives Fourth Amendment rights may be limited, qualified, or withdrawn.’” Gates v. Tex.

Dohner v. Neff

240 F. Supp. 2d 692 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 11, 2002

Qualified Immunity In Harlow v. … Qualified Immunity for Neff To find a clearly established constitutional right, a district court must find binding precedent from the Supreme Court, its court of appeals, or itself. Ohio Civil Serv. Employees Ass’n. v.

Adams v. Glaser

138 F. Supp. 3d 727 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Oct 5, 2015

Individual Capacity—Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” 90 As explained by the United States. … Supreme Court, “qualified immunity seeks to ensure that defendants reasonably can anticipate when their conduct may give rise to liability.” 91 “In essence, qualified immunity “avoid[s] excessive disruption of government”

Estrella v. Menifee

275 F. Supp. 2d 452 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 17, 2003

Qualified Immunity Assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff has adequately alleged a violation of his constitutional rights, defendants would still be dismissed from this lawsuit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Here, plaintiff fails the second and third prongs of the qualified immunity analysis.

Brooke Somers v. Anthony Devine

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 24, 2025

Indeed, as a matter of constitutional avoidance, we often grant qualified immunity based on a determination “that the purported right was not clearly established without resolving the ‘often more difficult … Determining whether a right is “clearly established” cannot be done in isolation from the perceived facts of the case in which the immunity is claimed.

Harcz v. Boucher

300 F. Supp. 3d 945 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jan 2, 2018

immunity because the Sixth Circuit's prior case law clearly established that the officers' conduct was unlawful. … "clearly established" prong.

Waldrop v. Evans

681 F. Supp. 840 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Mar 15, 1988

The Harlow decision defined the limits of qualified immunity in objective terms and instructed courts to consider only whether the official’s conduct in question violated clearly established law. … of qualified immunity. 5 B.

Pam Pino v. E.P. Higgs, Curt Faust, Marcella Wolf, Jim Naranjo, Harlan Weiss, Pablo Hernandez

75 F.3d 1461 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 5, 1996

Qualified immunity shields public officials from § 1983 liability if their actions did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … In other words, a party attempting to avoid summary judgment based on qualified immunity “is obliged to present facts which if true would constitute a violation of clearly established law.”

Danny M. Bennett v. Dennis Lee Hendrix

423 F.3d 1247 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 9, 2005

DISCUSSION Our procedure in assessing qualified immunity is well-established. … Clearly Established Law The final step in the qualified immunity inquiry is determining whether the law was clearly established so as to put the defendants on notice that their behavior violated the plaintiffs’

Perez v. School Board

917 F. Supp. 2d 1261 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 17, 2013

Furthermore, because the Defendants have raised qualified immunity as a defense, Plaintiff must allege that the officers violated a clearly-established right. Williams, 102 F.3d at 1182 . … When qualified immunity is raised, Plaintiff must plead facts showing that, at the time of the beating the law clearly established that the force used by the officers was excessive.

Houston v. Partee

776 F. Supp. 1309 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 6, 1991

Now the other defendants named in the Fifth Amended Complaint — four police officers (collectively the “Officers”) — have moved to be dismissed on immunity grounds, this time under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Instead the question is whether the plaintiff had a clearly established right against that defendant, who had a correspondingly clearly established duty not to infringe that right.

Woodcock v. City of Bowling Green

165 F. Supp. 3d 563 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Feb 24, 2016

Clearly Established Right Defendants, in their Motion for Summary Judgment, assert that Casada is entitled to qualified immunity. … The Pollard court did not address the qualified immunity inquiry of whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established. .

Henderson v. Simms

54 F. Supp. 2d 499 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 14, 1999

In order to be entitled to qualified immunity, public officials must show that their actions, objectively viewed, did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable official would … Mar.26, 1999), and, of course, since it predated the defendants’ conduct anyway, it certainly could not constitute “clearly established” law of which they should have known. See, e.g., Hodge v.

Gorman v. Roberts

909 F. Supp. 1479 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 17, 1995

However, even disputes over genuine issues of ma *1490 terial fact will not “preclude summary judgment premised on a defendant’s qualified immunity if the legal norms allegedly violated were not clearly established at the … Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Courson v.

Cannon v. City & County of Denver

998 F.2d 867 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 12, 1993

Order of Dismissal at 8. ’ The court found that the officers did not act in violation of clearly established law. It therefore concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. … established rights as to be entitled to a qualified immunity defense.

Mandel v. O'HARA

320 Md. 103 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 27, 1990

Although the Governor of West Virginia is intimately involved in the state’s budget process, his participation clearly does not qualify for .legislative immunity under Supreme Court of Virginia . … Thus, the Court’s reference to a state’s entire legislative power was simply to point out that the case was clearly one for absolute legislative immunity.

Kerr v. Lyford

171 F.3d 330 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 14, 1999

Moving for summary judgment, Goar, Minshew, Fleig, and Baggs claimed qualified immunity; Lyford asserted absolute and qualified immunity. B. … Thus, to proceed against a defendant claiming qualified immunity, a plaintiff must demonstrate the existence and violation of a clearly established constitutional right; the defendant may then show that he was performing

Humes v. Gilless

108 F. App'x 266 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2004

Thus, we may review “the legal question of qualified immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law.” Mattox v. City of Forest Park, 183 F.3d 515, 519 (6th Cir.1999). … Qualified Immunity “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Bowser v. Smith

288 F. Supp. 3d 136 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 18, 2018

Smith argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he violated no "clearly established constitutional right in failing to properly escort Plaintiff's assailant through the prison cell-block." Smith Mot. … "In order to defeat qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage, plaintiff must allege facts that plausibly establish" that qualified immunity does not apply. Boatwright v.

Lopez

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 11, 2025

That 19 conclusion means that the police officers are entitled to qualified immunity. 20 In determining whether an officer has qualified immunity, courts consider (1) whether the 21 officer violated a constitutional … immunity.”