Case law

Duke v. Hamil

997 F. Supp. 2d 1291 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Feb 4, 2014

Did Defendant Hamil Violate a Clearly Established Constitutional Right? … Even if the Court concluded that Hamil did violate Plaintiffs First Amend-, ment rights, Hamil would still be entitled to qualified immunity because that right was not clearly established.

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.”).

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.

Harrell v. State

170 Wash. App. 386 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 28, 2012

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 . … and Richards enjoyed qualified immunity.

Chayo v. Kaladjian

844 F. Supp. 163 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 9, 1994

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity shields government officials whose “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” Harlow v. … Accord Harlow, 457 U.S. at 819 , 102 S.Ct. at 2739 (stating that test for qualified immunity “focuses on the objective legal reasonableness of an official’s acts” in light of “clearly established” legal rules); Ying Jing

Daniel Houlihan v. City of Chicago

871 F.3d 540 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 8, 2017

To thwart qualified immunity, the plaintiffs had to prove two things: “first, that the facts alleged describe a vi- olation of a protected right; and second, that this right was clearly established at the time of the defendant's … Cook County Sheriff’s Office—decided four years after the police department reassigned them—the Northern Dis- trict of Illinois granted qualified immunity after concluding that the law did not clearly establish that the security-special

Coones v. Board of County Commissioners

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 21, 2026

Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282, 1294 (10th Cir. 2022) (“[G]eneral statements of the law can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes if they apply with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question.” … In particular, we focused in Cox on the plaintiff’s failure to adequately brief the question of clearly established law in response to the defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity. See id. at 1245–46.

Armendariz v. Penman

75 F.3d 1311 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 7, 1996

immunity because their actions did not violate any clearly established federal constitutional or statutory rights. … The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Parks v. Pomeroy

387 F.3d 949 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 20, 2004

plaintiff can establish a constitutional violation, he is entitled to qualified immunity. … This "clearly established" standard must be met in order to permit the denial of qualified immunity. For these inquiries, we conduct a de novo review. See, e.g., Tuggle v.

Limones v. School District of Lee County

111 So. 3d 901 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 6, 2013

“It is clearly established that one who undertakes to act, even when under no obligation to do so, thereby becomes obligated to act with reasonable care.” Union Park Mem’l Chapel v. Hutt, 670 So.2d 64, 66-67 (Fla.1996). … as establishing a civil liability.”

Courtney Saunders v. Kyle Thies

38 F.4th 701 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 29, 2022

The district court resolved the officers’ entitlement to qualified immunity on the clearly established prong, concluding that it was not clearly established that the -12- failure … The district court thus resolved this claim on the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis rather than the constitutional violation prong.

Opalenik v. LaBrie

945 F. Supp. 2d 168 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 22, 2013

As Magistrate Judge Judith Dein explained: Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Hegwood v. City of Eau Claire

668 F. Supp. 2d 1156 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Nov 10, 2009

“cannot clearly establish a constitutional violation.”). … Because plaintiffs have failed to show that it was “clearly established” that applying Wisconsin’s disorderly house statute would *1168 be unconstitutional, I conclude that the individual defendants have qualified immunity

McCabe v. MacAulay

545 F. Supp. 2d 857 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Apr 11, 2008

thus not clearly established. 6 The *863 court denied the remainder of Special Agent Macaulay’s First Motion for Summary Judgment with leave to refile on December 1, 2006 — after the parties had an opportunity to conduct … qualified-immunity discovery.

M.W. v. Nassau County

2025 NY Slip Op 05550 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 8, 2025

The County moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, contending, inter alia, that it was entitled to governmental function immunity and qualified immunity pursuant to Social Services … Contrary to the County's contention, it "was not entitled to qualified immunity pursuant to Social Services Law § 419, as qualified immunity does not bar recovery for the negligent supervision of children in foster care"

Norfleet v. ARK. DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES

796 F. Supp. 1194 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 1, 1992

Qualified immunity from liability for civil damages exists where the defendants' actions do not violate "clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … The Court, however, does not need to decide this question because it finds that the law in this area is not clearly established and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

in Re: Texas Department of Transportation

510 S.W.3d 701 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Oct 14, 2016

While the motion did not expressly refer to sovereign immunity, it asserted that Flores could not establish a prima facie case of age discrimination because TxDOT filled the vacant position with an older employee. … To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, the plaintiff in a true replacement case must show that he or she was (1) a member of a protected class; (2) qualified

Ippolito v. Meisel

958 F. Supp. 155 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 10, 1997

Since plaintiff asked for a declaration that Sutcliffe violated “clearly established laws,” however, and this is the same standard used to determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, see Wachtler, 35 F … .3d at 80 , and we have found that Officer Sutcliffe is entitled to such immunity, it follows that he cannot have violated “clearly established laws.”

State v. Keller-Bee

224 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 6, 2015

As will be discussed in detail infra, Maryland Courts have clearly established that a judge is immune from tort liability for judicial acts. … The Court continued: The determination of [w]hether a function qualifies for absolute immunity is made objectively and not subjectively.

Love v. Harlem Irrigation District

245 Mont. 443 · Montana Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1990

The Irrigation District is clearly a “governmental entity” within the meaning of § 2-9-111, MCA. … Harlem Irrigation District is clearly a governmental entity immune from suit under these definitions. *447 Under § 2-9-111(3), MCA, the commissioners individually are immune as members of a legislative body who are immune