Case law

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.

Winfield v. Trottier

710 F.3d 49 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 6, 2013

However, since this right was not 28 clearly established at the time of the search, Trottier is 29 entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity if the right 3 he violated was not “clearly established” at the time of the 4 events at issue.

ESTATE OF TAVARIS McGUIRE v. BAKER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 4, 2022

"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." White v. … The Court then turns to the next question in the qualified immunity analysis which is whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time McGuire was arrested and under the circumstances presented.

Miles LaCross v. City of Duluth

713 F.3d 1155 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 8, 2013

-3- Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability and the burdens of litigation in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established … Accordingly, Mark is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate LaCross’s then clearly established constitutional rights.

ATHEISTS OF FLORIDA v. City of Lakeland, Fla.

779 F. Supp. 2d 1330 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 15, 2011

Qualified Immunity Defendants also urge this Court to dismiss all claims against Lakeland Mayor Gow Fields because, at least according to Defendants, Defendant Fields enjoys qualified immunity from suit. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials who perform discretionary governmental functions from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate any ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional 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.”

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

BRASHER v. NEW JERSEY STATE PARK POLICE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 30, 2025

Plaintiff also contends the Officer Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because their actions violated his clearly established rights. (Id. at 24–28.) … immunity because no facts demonstrate a violation of clearly established law.

EFIRD v. ROCKINGHAM COUNTY SHERIFF SAMUEL SCOTT PAGE

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 31, 2025

Further, under Fourth Circuit precedent, where an officer is denied qualified immunity, he is likewise not entitled to public official immunity. See Bailey v. … Kennedy, 349 F.3d 731, 742 (4th Cir. 2003) (noting that North Carolina public official immunity is “unavailable to officers who violate clearly established rights”); Cooper v.

Wright v. Moore

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

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

X-Men Security, Inc. v. Governor George Pataki

196 F.3d 56 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 2, 1999

, contending principally that the complaint failed to allege the violation of any clearly established constitutional right and that, in any event, they were entitled to qualified immunity because it was objectively reasonable … Thus, when the district court has denied a qualified-immunity motion, its rulings that the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged the violation of a constitutional right and that--that right was clearly established at the time

Donald Jackson v. Pearl Public School Distr

626 F. App'x 80 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 15, 2015

Although we express no opinion as to whether the school officials’ conduct was constitutionally infirm, we conclude that the school officials are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not “clearly established” in … Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff shows (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the

Normand v. Mississippi Department of Corrections

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Aug 3, 2021

has clearly abrogated it.” … constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

George Wingate v. Scott Fulford

987 F.3d 299 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 4, 2021

The burden of establishing a qualified immunity defense rests on the official asserting the defense. Meyers v. Baltimore County, 713 F.3d 723, 731 (4th 2013). … But because this right was not clearly established at the time of the arrest, the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. 21

Berg v. N.Y.C. Police Comm'r

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 25, 2018

  we  determine  they  violated a  clearly  established  right.  … Vega, 371 F.3d 110,  8 116  (2d  Cir.  2004)  (stating  that  where  qualified  immunity  is  based  on  9 claimed special need to search parolee’s residence, the issue “is whether, in  10 light of clearly established

T.D. v. Patton

868 F.3d 1209 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 28, 2017

Patton addresses only the second prong of her qualified-immunity defense— whether she violated a clearly established constitutional right. … Patton does not persuade us that she is entitled to qualified immunity for lack of clearly established law. i. Post-custody conduct Ms.

Occupy Columbia v. Nikki Haley

738 F.3d 107 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 16, 2013

In addressing Appellants’ qualified immunity arguments, the district court first agreed with Appellants “that it was not clearly established at the time … June 12, 2013) (denying qualified immunity for state officials and holding that “plaintiffs had a clearly established right to utilize the Plaza to engage in overnight protest activity”).

Thomas W. Hill v. Department of the Air Force Paul J. Vallerie, and Paul S. Britt

884 F.2d 1318 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 6, 1989

Britt filed a motion to dismiss alleging absolute and qualified immunity. The district court dismissed part of the fifth cause of action on absolute immunity grounds. It did not discuss qualified immunity. … On appeal, “[w]e need not confine our review, however, to the viability of the qualified immunity defense.” Carlson v.

Banks v. Booher

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 2025

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 rights of which a … Defendants do not explain their argument for qualified immunity, beyond asserting that plaintiffs’ claims do not violate a “clearly established right of Native American/Indigenous inmates to have

Machete Productions, L.L.C. v. Heather Page

809 F.3d 281 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 28, 2015

4 To overcome an official’s qualified immunity, a plaintiff must plead facts demonstrating “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of … Accordingly, Machete cannot establish that it had a clearly established right to these funds that Morales violated. See Ashcroft, 131 S. Ct. at 2080.