Case law

Keith Edwards v. Officer J. Grubbs

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 13, 2026

Edwards to establish that qualified immunity does not apply. See Bailey, 843 F.3d at 480. … A right may be clearly established for qualified im- munity purposes in one of three ways: (1) case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional right;

Neu v. Corcoran

869 F.2d 662 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 3, 1989

We therefore have jurisdiction to review the immunity ruling. 8 2. Qualified Immunity. … Qualified immunity shields officials from liability for civil damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Lawson v. Abrams

863 F.2d 260 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 20, 1988

related to that decision, noted that prosecutors may assert only qualified immunity, not absolute immunity, for their administrative or investigative tasks not intimately associated with the judicial process. … performed rather than on the office itself, for, as the district court observed, it is established that prosecutors have absolute immunity for some of their acts but only qualified immunity for others.

Mabe v. San Bernardino County

237 F.3d 1101 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 24, 2001

Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103 (9th Cir. 1987). 14 Whether governing law was clearly established is a legal determination reviewed de novo. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 (1985) (qualified immunity). … Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393 (1978)). 23 The first prong of the qualified immunity test focuses on whether the law governing Perry's removal of MD from the Mabe home was clearly established.

Alvarado v. City of New York

482 F. Supp. 2d 341 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 26, 2007

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AND ALVARADO’S UNLAWFUL SEARCH CLAIM Alvarado argues that the Court should not have dismissed his unlawful search claim on qualified immunity grounds as a material factual dispute remained regarding the … Only Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent existing at the time of the alleged violation is relevant in deciding whether a right is clearly established.”).

Classroom Teachers of Dallas v. Dallas Independent School District

164 F. Supp. 2d 839 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 6, 2001

immunity because Plaintiffs allege no affirmative *846 conduct on the part of either; and 4) Me-drano is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … Consequently, a defendant in that situation might not have violated a clearly established constitutional right and qualified immunity might still be available. 10 .

Jones v. Allen

312 Ga. App. 762 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Nov 21, 2011

Mathews did not establish that they were entitled to qualified immunity, as the record evidence establishes that the circumstances are similar to those present in Keenan . As in Keenan , it is undisputed that M. … Allen was entitled to qualified immunity. The Joneses argue that the holding of these cases — that MCG resident physicians are entitled to qualified immunity — should not be extended to Dr.

McDonald v. Krajewski

649 F. Supp. 370 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 13, 1986

Qualified Immunity Defendant Krajewski also requests dismissal of plaintiffs complaint on the basis of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects the official from liability for damages only when the official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Douglas Rush v. Barbara Perryman

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 3, 2009

The court denied the Board qualified immunity with respect to Rush's First and Fourteenth Amendment claims, finding that Rush's rights under those provisions were clearly established. … The court concluded that the Board was not entitled to qualified immunity because Rush's right to a name-clearing hearing was clearly established.

Fishman v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 13, 2025

Qualified Immunity All defendants assert qualified immunity. … Therefore, if defendants wish to avail themselves of qualified immunity, they cannot have violated a constitutional right that is clearly established. See id.

Estate of Simpson v. Yellowstone County

229 F. Supp. 3d 1192 · District Court, D. Montana · Jan 24, 2017

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability so long as the officers’ conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Clearly Established Right Because a constitutional violation has been found, the next step in the qualified immunity analysis is to ask “whether the right was clearly established ... in light of the specific context of the

Malone v. Chambers County Board of Commissioners

875 F. Supp. 773 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 21, 1994

Malone contends that qualified immunity does not protect the Defendants from suit where, as here, their conduct deprived an individual of a clearly-established, federally-protected right. … To defeat a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the “legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions or, ... the law clearly

Dixon v. Wallowa County

336 F.3d 1013 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 21, 2003

If so, “the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … The individual defendants cross-appeal from the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment as to their *1021 qualified immunity on Dixon’s Fourth Amendment claim, ■ arguing that the law was not clearly established

Hurst v. Finley

857 F. Supp. 1517 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 14, 1994

In other words, the question in determining if an individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity is whether the defendant could have believed his conduct was lawful in light of clearly established law and considering … Hayes, 957 F.2d 845, 848 (11th Cir.1992) (holding that an officer is entitled to qualified immunity insofar as conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable officer would have known); see also

Weaver v. State of California

63 Cal. App. 4th 188 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 1998

Defendants also asserted immunity under the qualified immunity doctrine, alleging that they are shielded from liability unless their actions violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … was reasonable and that the qualified immunity doctrine applied.”

Gay Activists Alliance v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma

638 P.2d 1116 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 22, 1981

The Court added that “[a] compensatory award will be appropriate only if the school board member has acted with such an impermissible motivation or with such disregard of the student’s clearly established constitutional rights … The Regents did not act with such disregard for the established law as to deny them qualified immunity. There had been no relevant pronouncements by this Court or by the Tenth Circuit interpreting Oklahoma law.

McNamara v. City of Long Beach

249 F. Supp. 3d 684 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 21, 2017

“Under 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 statutory … These facts inform whether defendants violated a clearly established right of the plaintiffs. As a result, the Court cannot dismiss plaintiffs claims at this stage based on qualified immunity.

Stein v. Ryan

662 F.3d 1114 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 18, 2011

. § 1983, the district court concluded that they were protected by qualified immunity. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (qualified immunity applies if offi- cial’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known”).

L.C. v. Utah State Board of Education

188 F. Supp. 2d 1330 · District Court, D. Utah · Feb 28, 2002

the right was clearly established in light of the specific factual context of the case. … hearing process as she did was not clearly established at the time.

Sanchez v. Nunemaker

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 23, 2026

and that defeat a qualified immunity defense with equal specificity.” … Clearly Established Law We next address whether the constitutional right in question was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Harmon, 16 F.4th at 1163.