Case law

STEFANOV v. MCINTYRE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 14, 2023

"A state official is protected by qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows: (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged … Stefanov has failed to establish that the constitutional right that he claims was violated was clearly established, Officer McIntyre is entitled to qualified immunity on Mr.

Jeffers v. Albright

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Feb 28, 2023

Thus, if the WVRJCFA is shown to have “violated a clearly established right or law with respect to training, supervision, or retention of [the correctional officer], the WVRJCFA is not entitled to immunity … Va. 2017) (“qualified immunity is broad and protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).

Gillespie v. Boudreau

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 29, 2025

denied qualified immunity because it was clearly established— as of 1987—that prosecutors violate the Constitution when they fabricate evidence introduced at trial. 682 F.3d at 585–86 (emphasis added); see also Smith v. … clearly establish the right).

Brown v. Harris 6034

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2023

Qualified immunity protects officers when the law underlying the alleged violations is not clearly established. … Accordingly, the relevant right was not clearly established and Defendants are shielded by qualified immunity.

J.M. v. Parlier Unified School District

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 10, 2021

Qualified Immunity 14 Qualified immunity applies when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established 15 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that Ninth Circuit 27 precedent is sufficient to meet the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity).

(PC) Rico v. Ducart

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 6, 2020

Qualified Immunity 4 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 5 violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … immunity where their conduct did not violate clearly 5 | established law.

Kennedy v. City of Villa Hills, Ky.

635 F.3d 210 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 24, 2011

In the context of qualified immunity, preexisting, clearly established law refers to “binding precedent from the Supreme Court, the Sixth Circuit, the district court itself, or other circuits that is directly on point.” … To defeat Schutzman’s qualified- immunity defense, Kennedy must also demonstrate that his right to be free from retaliatory arrest in such a context was clearly established.

Raiche v. Pietroski

623 F.3d 30 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 25, 2010

Qualified immunity affords limited protection to public officials faced with liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, "'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Prong Two: The Right was Clearly Established Pietroski may still mount a successful qualified immunity defense if Raiche's Fourth Amendment right was not clearly established at

Spurlock v. Satterfield

167 F.3d 995 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 11, 1999

Thus, Satterfield is not entitled to qualified immunity for these alleged acts, because they violated the plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights. Y. … In rejecting Coarsey’s qualified immunity claim, the district court determined that ”[s]oIici-tation of false testimony for use in prosecuting an individual violates clearly established constitutional rights.”

Anthony Perez v. City of Fresno

98 F.4th 919 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 15, 2024

The panel held that the law-enforcement officers were entitled to qualified immunity. At the time of Perez’s death in 2017, the law did not clearly establish, nor was it * The Honorable Danny J. … The district court likewise granted Anderson qualified immunity because existing law did not clearly establish, nor was it obvious, that Anderson’s conduct in providing medical care was unconstitutional.

The Estate of Roosevelt Holliman v. Turner

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Feb 10, 2023

constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Once qualified immunity has been “raised as a defense by a defendant, … the plaintiffs have the burden of establishing the proof and arguments necessary to overcome it.” Strickland v. City of Crenshaw, 114 F.

Casey v. City of Federal Heights

509 F.3d 1278 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 10, 2007

Clearly Established Law Because Officer Sweet asserts qualified immunity, we must decide not only whether Mr. … Clearly Established Law Like Officer Sweet, Officer Lor asserts qualified immunity, so we must also decide whether her use of excessive force violated “clearly established law.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 207.

Cuomo

District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 24, 2026

Wright, 386 F.3d 432, 434, 436 (2d Cir. 2004) (describing a defendant’s burden of establishing a qualified immunity defense in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion as a “formidable hurdle”). … Sept. 17, 2013) (denying motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds where the defendant “only include[d] the legal standard for establishing qualified immunity and, in a conclusory manner, state[d] that the claims

Brown

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 2, 2026

Ernst, 933 F.3d 975, 979 (8th Cir. 2019); Morgan, 920 F.3d at 523 (in determining whether an officer has qualified immunity, courts must answer whether the officer violated a clearly established right). … For all of these reasons, Brown did not violate Nelson’s clearly established rights.

Holly Schulkers v. Elizabeth Kammer

955 F.3d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 30, 2020

A right is clearly established for purposes of overcoming the qualified immunity defense when existing precedent has “placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” White v. Pauly, 137 S. … established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.”

United States v. Reid

139 F.3d 1367 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 29, 1998

Other than this brief comment, nothing in the record tells us why the court concluded that the appellant did not qualify for a § 5C1.2 reduction. … Furthermore, the evidence in the record does not clearly establish that he did not qualify.

Natia Sampson v. County of Los Angeles

974 F.3d 1012 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 9, 2020

But, critically, the 2011 case did not reach the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis and said nothing about whether the right was clearly established prior to 2011. See Glenn, 673 F.3d at 870. … Therefore, because the same clearly established right at issue in Capp is also at issue here, the cases that supported denial of qualified immunity in Capp also compel us to deny qualified immunity in the instant case. 4

Louis Doss v. John Young

626 F. App'x 453 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 18, 2015

Qualified Immunity Government officials may invoke qualified immunity to shield themselves “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Clearly Established Law Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, we consider whether Helpenstell’s conduct was proscribed by clearly established law at the time of the incident.

Wright v. Moore

District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Sep 14, 2021

conduct is clearly established.’” … that the law is clearly established”).

Chaaban v. City of Detroit

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 2, 2022

On the other hand, the Crawford court held that the general preference to not grant motions to dismiss on qualified immunity “might have more vitality in the clearly established context” where “the application … Indeed, the court stated, “[d]ismissing for qualified immunity on [the clearly established prong] is sometimes difficult because the . . . inquiry may turn on case-specific details that must be fleshed out in discovery.