Case law

Rebecca Buddenberg v. Robert Weisdack

939 F.3d 732 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 20, 2019

As relevant here, Budzik argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity because Buddenberg’s complaint failed to allege facts establishing a violation of a clearly established First Amendment right. … “When a defendant appeals the denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, we review de novo whether the complaint alleges [a] violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Id.

Maxwell v. Outagamie County

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Feb 6, 2023

But that articulation of the relevant clearly established principle is the sort of overly general statement that the Supreme Court has repeatedly found insufficient to overcome qualified immunity. … He was likewise entitled to qualified immunity with respect to his delay in calling for emergency medical help because existing caselaw did not clearly establish an obligation to call for medical help immediately.

Cosenza v. City of Worcester

355 F. Supp. 3d 81 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 2, 2019

Qualified Immunity Defendants similarly argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiff's malicious prosecution claims. … Defendants argue that the caselaw demonstrates Plaintiff's right was not clearly established and they are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Brittany A. Karels v. Gabriel A. Storz

906 F.3d 740 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 15, 2018

Qualified immunity shields a law enforcement officer from liability in a § 1983 action “unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff], establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory … We may not “define clearly established law at a high level of generality,” but rather must determine “whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.” Id.

Ricciuti v. Transit Authority

124 F.3d 123 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 21, 1997

To recover on that ground, of course, a plaintiff must still overcome the hurdle of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is unavailable where, as here, the action violates an accused's clearly established constitutional rights, and no reasonably competent police officer could believe otherwise. Anderson v.

Gene Autrey Adams v. Paul Metiva

31 F.3d 375 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 1, 1994

The key inquiry in analyzing a claim of qualified immunity is whether the defendant’s alleged conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … First, the allegations must state a claim of the violation of clearly established law.

Weaver v. Clarke

45 F.3d 1253 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 30, 1995

The parties’ briefs focus on the second step of our qualified immunity analysis— whether the right allegedly violated was “clearly established.” … CONCLUSION Because Weaver has alleged the violation of a clearly-established constitutional right, the defendant prison officials are not entitled to dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity.

Knowlton Merritt v. John E. MacKey

827 F.2d 1368 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 16, 1987

Vincent and Mackey are not entitled to qualified immunity protection because their conduct exceeded the scope of their authority and because they violated Merritt’s clearly established constitutional rights. … When the law is clearly established, as here, the qualified immunity defense fails “since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.”

Louis Gradisher v. City of Akron

794 F.3d 574 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 24, 2015

Whether a right has been clearly established should not be determined at “a high level of generality.” Id. at 2084. … City of Broadview Heights, 712 F.3d 951, 963 (6th Cir. 2013) (“Qualified immunity does not protect the officers here.

Estate of Charles Chivrell v. City of Arcata

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 6, 2024

To determine if an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the 10 Court considers whether (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right 11 was clearly established at the time of the … See Perez, 98 F.4th at 928 (contravention of training would not 26 defeat qualified immunity because “the law did not clearly establish, nor did

Oliver v. Fiorino

586 F.3d 898 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 26, 2009

Under this test, “the law is clearly established, and qualified immunity can be overcome, only if the standards set forth in Graham and our own case law inevitably lead every reasonable officer in [the defendant's] position … When measured against these facts, the officers violated a clearly established right. The district court properly rejected qualified immunity for Officers Burk and Fiorino. Accordingly, we affirm.

Hicks v. Feeney

770 F.2d 375 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 26, 1985

Fauver, 544 F.Supp. 584, 607 (D.N.J.1982) (although legal principles clearly established, qualified immunity granted because specific question not yet resolved). … Thus, Feeney’s entitlement to qualified immunity hinges on whether it was clearly established that Hicks’s confinement after the initial 72-hour period violated his constitutional rights.

Lewis v. Hat Corporation of America

150 A.2d 750 · Court of Chancery of Delaware · May 1, 1959

It is clearly established in Delaware that stockholder ratification of corporate action which is not per se void renders such action immune from minority stockholder attack, Fidanque v. … The proxy statement setting forth the matters to be acted on at the August 29 special meeting of stockholders clearly described the specific matter before the meeting to be approval of the agreement to purchase Champ Hats

Godin v. Corrections Corp. of America

Vermont Superior Court · Aug 25, 2017

We have recognized two degrees of official immunity: absolute immunity and qualified immunity. … White, 155 Vt. 621, 626–27 (1991) (“The desire in Levinsky to promote summary judgment resolution of qualified immunity claims is consistent with the perception that qualified immunity is indeed an immunity from the suit

Siebert v. Severino

97 F. Supp. 2d 882 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · May 24, 2000

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (even if the law is clearly established, an official is entitled to qualified immunity if he neither knew or should have known of the relevant legal … prevail on her due process claim because Severino violated clearly established constitutional law.

Ray v. Washington State Department of Health and Human Services

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 17, 2025

qualified immunity. … Bd. of Regents of Nevada Sys. of Higher Educ., 616 20 F.3d 963, 969 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[W]e may begin the qualified immunity analysis by considering 21 whether there is a violation of clearly established law without

William Evans v. Harry Vinson

427 F. App'x 437 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 29, 2011

Qualified Immunity Although the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to Evans establishes that Defendants violated Evans’s First and Fourth Amendment rights, Defendants may still be entitled to qualified … immunity if the constitutional rights at issue were not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Locantore v. Hunt

775 F. Supp. 2d 680 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2011

require a conclusion that it was ‘clearly established’ in the qualified immunity context.” … Because it was not clearly established for qualified immunity purposes that to impose PRS administratively was unlawful prior to Earley , it must follow that it was also not clearly established that it was unlawful to do

Mudge v. Zugalla, Harder

939 F.3d 72 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 12, 2019

had violated clearly established law. … ʺThe issues on qualified immunity are: (1) whether plaintiff has shown facts making out [a] violation of a constitutional right; (2) if so, whether that right was clearly established; and (3) even if the right was clearly

Porter v. Jameson

889 F. Supp. 1484 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 12, 1995

“clearly established”). … Simply put, Officer Jameson is entitled to qualified immunity if the Porters fail to produce sufficient evidence that, when viewed in the light most favorable to them, Jameson violated their clearly established Fourteenth