Case law

Holguin v. Lopez

584 F. Supp. 2d 921 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Oct 28, 2008

However, qualified immunity shields state actors performing discretionary functions from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … “Texas law of official immunity is substantially the same as federal qualified immunity law.” Wren v. Towe, 130 F.3d 1154, 1160 (5th Cir.1997).

Glover by and Through Glover v. Donnell

878 F. Supp. 898 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Mar 2, 1995

If this were a correct characterization of the basis of her claim, then Donnell would clearly enjoy immunity, for the law in Mississippi remains that public officials who are sued merely because they exercise authority over … a particular governmental program or institution are entitled to qualified immunity.

Winder v. Erste

905 F. Supp. 2d 19 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 19, 2012

However, even if a plaintiff can establish that there was a violation of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, a defendant seeking qualified immunity can still demonstrate that there were extraordinary … Erste argues that he is protected by qualified immunity from Winder's procedural due process claim because it is not "clearly established" that Winder had a property interest in his continued employment when Erste terminated

Carter v. Rhode Island

68 F.3d 9 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 18, 1995

had been "clearly established" long before 1990. … immunity from suit "if the right asserted by the plaintiff was `clearly established' at the time of its alleged violation . . .

James Harold Peterson Paula Peterson v. City of Plymouth Michael Ridgley David Lindman Mark Bevins

60 F.3d 469 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 14, 1995

If the officers did not have probable cause, a second inquiry is necessary to determine whether the officers are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity. 6 The officers *474 are immune from liability if, in light of clearly … In light of this clearly established law, Officer Ridgley did not act in an objectively reasonable manner.

Leachman v. Dretke

261 S.W.3d 297 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jul 10, 2008

After a government official asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that the defendant’s conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Therefore, as to Oncken’s qualified immunity defense, Leachman failed to show that her conduct violated any clearly-established statutory or constitutional right because he failed to state any constitutional claims in his

Webb v. Jackson

583 So. 2d 946 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1991

As to that section of the Complaint, Officer Jackson enjoys qualified immunity since the misconduct alleged does not fall within one of the three exceptions to qualified immunity. … Officer Jackson is protected by qualified immunity and the City of Newton by sovereign immunity on that issue.

Leibowitz v. CITY OF MINEOLA, TEX.

660 F. Supp. 2d 775 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Oct 2, 2009

Qualified Immunity Bittner asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is intended to shield government officials from liability for monetary damages for acts in the performance of discretionary functions that were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law

McDonald v. City of Freeport, Tex.

834 F. Supp. 921 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 5, 1993

To be entitled to qualified immunity, a governmental official must have been performing discretionary functions, and his conduct must not have violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … established law for purposes of qualified immunity inquiries.

Hickey v. Hayse

188 F. Supp. 2d 722 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Dec 17, 2001

A government official enjoys qualified immunity if his conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known. Williams v. … To find that an officer has violated the clearly established constitutional right negating the defense of qualified immunity, the trial court must find binding precedent establishing the right.

Joseph Carl Brown v. Joseph Ponte

842 F.2d 16 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 14, 1988

As a result, the qualified immunity defense is available to appellants. … If the law at the time of appellants’ actions was not “clearly established,” they could not have “known” that their conduct was forbidden. Id.

Sarah Wilson v. Eric Gregory

3 F. 4th 844 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 2021

But in this case, our federal qualified immunity analysis turns on the “clearly established” prong. … because Ohio statutory immunity does not turn on whether a particular right was clearly established.

Barajas v. Waters

815 F. Supp. 222 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 11, 1993

Qualified Immunity In their motion for dismissal, or alternatively, summary judgment, defendants raised the defense of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is not, however, available as a defense if the officer knew or reasonably should have known that the law clearly proscribes the action taken and that the action violated clearly established statutory or

Pearlie Gambrel v. Knox Cnty., Ky.

25 F.4th 391 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 8, 2022

Even so, our caselaw did not clearly establish that the Officers acted unconstitutionally when using this force. Since we may address the two-part qualified-immunity test in either order, see Pearson v. … This conclusion leads to the second qualified-immunity question: Even under Gambrel’s version of events, would Ashurst’s shooting violate clearly established law?

Jones v. State

170 Wash. 2d 338 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 4, 2010

Whether Wene and Jeppesen are entitled to qualified immunity from liability under § 1983 for violating Jones’ right to due process ¶17 When the defendant moves for summary judgment in a § 1983 suit and raises a qualified … Qualified immunity ¶27 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “[g]overnment officials performing discretionary functions” are immune from § 1983 suits “if their conduct is objectively reasonable when measured against clearly

Long v. Morris

485 F. Supp. 2d 1247 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 3, 2007

Analysis Defendant seeks qualified immunity on plaintiffs claim of excessive force. … Ordinarily, in order for plaintiff to demonstrate that a law is clearly established, “there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must

Ortega v. Moran

District Court, D. Connecticut · Nov 21, 2022

Moran further asserts a defense of qualified immunity. … In order for a plaintiff to overcome a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that the defendant violated a right of the plaintiff that was clearly established law at the time of the conduct in question.

Gene Bartholomew v. Commonwealth Of Pa

221 F.3d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 7, 2000

established at the time those warrants were executed. 15 We note in this connection that, for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis, the "clearly established constitutional right" should be set forth with specificity … Thus, while it was "clearly established" that warrants must be particular, the narrower and more appropriate question, i.e. whether it was clearly established that one has a constitutional right to be free from a search pursuant

Morin v. Caire

77 F.3d 116 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 7, 1996

The Plaintiffs' Constitutional Claims: Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 unless it is shown by specific allegations that the officials violated clearly established law.10 … To determine if qualified immunity applies, this court follows a two-step process.

Dennis Wiertella v. Lake Cnty., Ohio

141 F.4th 775 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 24, 2025

Qualified immunity To overcome Snow’s and Watson’s qualified-immunity defense, the Estate must establish (1) that Snow and Watson violated Wiertella’s constitutional rights, and (2) that the governing caselaw “clearly … Sheehan, 575 U.S. 600, 613 (2015) (“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”).