Case law

People v. Trinity Holistic Caregivers, Inc.

239 Cal. App. Supp. 4th 9 · Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California · Aug 20, 2015

Nothing in the definition requires the other MMB within LAMC section 45.19.6.3’s 600-foot radius to be one which qualifies for immunity. … “permanently” disqualify the otherwise qualified MMB from obtaining immunity.

Middaugh v. City of Three Rivers

629 F. App'x 710 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 26, 2015

It is well established, however, that the doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Clearly Established Rights The second step of our qualified immunity analysis asks whether the rights at issue were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See id. at 306 .

Moss v. United States Secret Service

750 F. Supp. 2d 1197 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 29, 2010

For instance, an allegation that Defendant A violated a plaintiffs clearly established rights does nothing to overcome Defendant B’s assertion of qualified immunity, absent some allegation that Defendant B was responsible … Federal Defendants argue that they have qualified immunity because Plaintiffs’ *1227 First Amendment rights were not clearly established at the time and the Federal Defendants’ conduct on that day was reasonable. (Fed.

Anthony v. Burkhart

28 F. Supp. 2d 1239 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 30, 1998

For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government … Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the federal "rights” allegedly violated were “clearly established.” Barts v.

Webb v. Greene County Sheriff's Office

494 F. Supp. 2d 779 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 6, 2007

Even where an officer has violated a plaintiffs constitutional rights, that officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the right that he violated was not “clearly established” at the time of the violation. … As the right that Keller is accused of violating was clearly established at the time of the *795 arrest, he is not entitled to qualified immunity. 4.

Davis v. Education Service Center

62 S.W.3d 890 · Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) · Dec 5, 2001

. § 22.051(a); rather, Region VIII qualifies for sovereign immunity as an agency of the State. Sovereign immunity, unless waived, insulates the State of Texas, its agencies, and its officials from lawsuits for damages. … In Matthews , the court ruled the defendant did not have a qualified immunity for violating Title VII. Id. at 847 .

Rivera-Sanchez v. Autoridad De Energia Electrica

360 F. Supp. 2d 302 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 1, 2005

Co-defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … As such, the individual co-defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity. (Docket No. 44, pp. 3-4). Plaintiff has failed to rebut the qualified immunity raised by the individual co-defendants.

Sledd v. Lindsay

864 F. Supp. 819 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 1994

It is a well settled tenet that under the judicially created doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from civil damages unless their conduct violates a clearly established … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials ... from damages unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Elder v.

Scott Hanson v. William Shubert

968 F.3d 1014 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 4, 2020

SHUBERT 5 in part found that Shubert and Gonzalez could not be accorded qualified immunity as a matter of law, as genuine factual disputes remained as to whether they violated Hanson’s clearly … established rights.

Doe Ex Rel. Pahssen v. Merrill Community School District

610 F. Supp. 2d 789 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 26, 2009

Second, Defendants have clearly raised the defense of qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs due process claim. … Qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Hicks v. Feeney

850 F.2d 152 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 22, 1988

Finally, the district court found that because Hicks’s rights were not “clearly established” at the time of the violation, Feeney was entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 1515. … If it were clearly established that this confinement violated Hicks’s constitutional rights, then Feeney does not have qualified immunity. Id.

Antonio Smith v. John Kind

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 10, 2025

But the Supreme Court has cautioned courts against reason- ing from broad principles when considering whether a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. See Kisela, 584 U.S. at 104. … Sheriff of Cook County, 993 F.3d 981, 988 (7th Cir. 2021) (“The prong-two clearly-established-law assess- ment does not require a case with identical factual circum- stances, lest qualified immunity become absolute immun-

Jag v. City of Warren

944 F. Supp. 606 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 5, 1996

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Therefore, when a defendant moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, as is the case here, the plaintiff must: 1) identify a clearly established right alleged to have been violated; and 2) establish that a reasonable

LeRod Butler v. City of Detroit, Mich.

936 F.3d 410 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 22, 2019

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. … was clearly established.”

Houghton v. Culver

452 F. Supp. 2d 212 · District Court, W.D. New York · Sep 21, 2006

Qualified immunity shields public officials “from civil damages liability insofar as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,’ Harlow … We further conclude that Lynch has not established that he is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity on any of Curry’s claims”); Thomas v.

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.

Rhodes v. Torres

901 S.W.2d 794 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Jun 22, 1995

The test under federal immunity law for such claims is as follows: “[W]e look to whether a reasonable official could have believed his or her conduct to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information possessed … Rhodes was lawful in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed at the time he filed the motion to revoke her probation.

Salazar v. Bjork

85 N.M. 94 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 1973

However, we do believe that the facts of this case give rise to a qualified immunity. … Ares, 29 N.M. 418 , 223 P. 766 (1924) have used the term “qualified privilege” where we have used the words “qualified immunity”.

Calia v. Werholtz

426 F. Supp. 2d 1210 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 12, 2006

personal capacity, they are protected by qualified immunity. … such as qualified immunity. 41 Upon a defendant’s assertion of a qualified immunity defense in a summary judgment motion, plaintiff has a two-part burden.

Pinder v. Johnson

54 F.3d 1169 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 30, 1995

Where the law is clearly established, and where no reasonable officer could believe he was acting in accordance with it, qualified immunity will not attach. … The Supreme Court recognized, however, that a state official could never assert the defense of qualified immunity if the test of "clearly established law" were applied at that level of generality.