Case law

Dodge v. Dean

31 F. App'x 759 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 29, 2002

Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99 , 112 n. 4 (2d Cir. 2000) (“[W]e see no reason to expect that discovery would have helped [plaintiff] establish a triable issue of material fact. … And we are particularly reluctant to remand for unnecessary discovery because this case revolves around questions of absolute and qualified immunity.”). The judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

William McKinney v. Pat Anderson Carol Ployer H.L. Whitley George W. Sumner John Nye

924 F.2d 1500 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 1, 1991

The defendants have raised the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, which shields them from liability for damages if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … At the time the defendants acted, there was no clearly established liability for exposing prisoners to ETS.

Gaston v. Ploeger

229 F. App'x 702 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 12, 2007

When a defendant has asserted qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish: (1) that the defendant violated the plaintiffs constitutional right, and (2) that, at the time of the incident, it was clearly … The appellants contend that, as a matter of law, the facts in the record do not establish a constitutional violation; if this is true, they are necessarily entitled to qualified immunity.

Emil A. Tonkovich v. Kansas Board Of Regents

159 F.3d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 26, 1998

I, doc. 3 at 172 (plaintiff's failure to allege that Hearing Committee members violated clearly established right entitles them to qualified immunity); id., doc. 4 at 216-17 (plaintiff's failure to identify clearly established … Pages and pages of facts are no substitute for citations to clearly established law. Nor can they meet Professor Tonkovich's burden on qualified immunity.

Lewis Harry, Jr. v. Anna Jacobs

648 F. App'x 732 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 19, 2016

The district court properly granted summary judgment for Talley on the basis of qualified immunity because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that it was unlawful under the circumstances to temporarily … Ct. 2074, 2080, 2083 (2011) (discussing qualified immunity and noting that a right is clearly established only if “every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right” (citation and

Scott v. Carpenter

District Court, D. South Dakota · Jan 25, 2024

for the limited purpose of addressing the issue of qualified immunity.” … issue can be resolved); Lovelace, 47 F.3d at 287 (holding that discovery was appropriate when plaintiff states a claim of violation of a clearly established law and the parties disagree as to what actions the defendants

Schroeder v. St. Louis County

708 N.W.2d 497 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Jan 26, 2006

Nevertheless, we extended official immunity to the teacher because the department policy itself was being challenged and the decision adopting the protocol involved sufficient judgment and discretion to qualify for official … He was not required by an established protocol to grade against traffic.

Robert Devereaux v. Roberto Ricardo Perez

218 F.3d 1045 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 12, 2000

ANALYSIS Standard of Review 30 A district court's decision that an asserted federal right was "clearly established" such that qualified immunity in a 42 U.S.C. … Bailey, 957 F.2d 920, 931 (1st Cir. 1992) (noting that "the dimensions of [the] right [to family integrity ] have yet to be clearly established" and applying qualified immunity to suit in which social worker allegedly interfered

The Estate of Dominique McCoy v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 16, 2025

19 For qualified immunity, Defendants contend that Plaintiff has not identified a 20 clearly established constitutional right. … clearly 4 established federal law.”); Borja v.

Westport Taxi Service, Inc. v. Westport Transit District

235 Conn. 1 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Aug 15, 1995

The legislative history of the act clearly establishes that it was intentionally patterned after the antitrust law of the federal government. See 14 H.R. Proc. … Id., 185. 25 In this case, the defendant did not specially plead any immunity defense — absolute or qualified.

Hamilton v. The City of Wilmer Texas

District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 1, 2023

A plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity must plead facts: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the … “To be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Brown v.

Cantley v. West Virginia Regional Jail & Correctional Facility Authority

771 F.3d 201 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 14, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects defendants in § 1983 suits from the burden of going to trial where the “conduct [at issue] does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Because the law was not clearly established, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for the strip search of Teter. 2 III.

Estate of Derek Williams, Jr. v. Jeffrey Cline

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 31, 2018

It concludes, however, that we have jurisdiction to consider the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis: whether those constitutional rights were clearly established. … legal questions related to qualified immunity.

Sanchez v. County of Sacramento

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 25, 2023

The Court agrees with Defendants that there is no clearly established law and thus 4 Allbee is entitled to qualified immunity. … However, the “clearly established” standard applies to federal 5 qualified immunity; under California’s Bane Act, the “clearly delineated” standard 6 governs, which is different.

Slone v. Herman

983 F.2d 107 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 4, 1993

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court held that, in order for officials to lose their qualified immunity, their conduct must violate “clearly established statutory … The Court stated that the agent was entitled to qualified immunity if, “in light of the clearly established principles governing warrantless searches, he could, as a matter of law, reasonably have believed that the search

Porter v. Bowen

496 F.3d 1009 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 6, 2007

Finally, we hold that Jones is entitled to qualified immunity from damages because the constitutionality of halting vote swapping was not clearly established in 2000. … The court ruled that Jones was entitled to qualified immunity because “the law regarding the constitutionality of prohibiting internet vo-teswapping is far from clearly established.”

Maye v. New Haven

District Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 24, 2023

The qualified immunity decisions Defendants cite as the “controlling decisions” were the law on qualified immunity when the deadline for dispositive motions passed. … City of New York, 374 F.3d 93, 108 (2d Cir. 2004) (“The matter of whether a right was clearly established at the pertinent time is a question of law.”) (citing cases).

United States v. Morton

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 23, 2022

Morton, 984 F.3d 421, 427 (5th Cir. 2021), they do not establish probable cause “that the photographs on Morton’s phones would contain evidence pertinent to [that] crime,” id. at 428. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 236 (2009) (giving courts discretion to rule only on the “clearly established” inquiry for qualified immunity but recognizing that deciding the underlying constitutional question is “often

Misael Cordero v. Gregory Kelley

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 19, 2026

The analysis of a qualified immunity claim is guided by a two-part test: (1) “whether the facts … show the violation of a legal right,” and (2) “whether that right was clearly established.” Id. at 227. … And a “state statute cannot ‘clearly establish’ the federal right for qualified immunity purposes.” Id.

Robinson v. Prunty

249 F.3d 862 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 7, 2001

The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that they were entitled to qualified immunity. … “In order to determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, a court must (1) identify the right allegedly violated, (2) determine whether the right was ‘clearly established,’ and (3) determine whether a