Case law

Elkins v. District of Columbia

527 F. Supp. 2d 36 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 12, 2007

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability under § 1983 provided that the official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person … To determine whether qualified immunity applies, a court must make a two-fold inquiry.

Salvador Reza v. Russell Pearce

806 F.3d 497 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 18, 2015

To overcome Senator Pearce’s qualified immunity defense, Reza must establish both that Senator Pearce violated his First Amendment rights, and that this violation was of a “clearly established statutory or constitutional … In evaluating the question of qualified immunity, we must be careful not to define “clearly established” at a “high level of generality.” City & Cnty. of San Francisco v.

Mascher v. Hon. hancock/gaver

Court of Appeals of Arizona · Feb 16, 2016

State, 206 Ariz. 529, 532, ¶ 6 (2003) (when defendant offers immunity defense, plaintiff "bears the initial burden of proving a violation of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right").

Malley v. Briggs

475 U.S. 335 · Supreme Court of the United States · Mar 5, 1986

We reject both propositions and address first the absolute immunity issue. A Our general approach to questions of immunity under § 1983 is by now well established. … that the judicial process will on the whole benefit from a rule of qualified rather than absolute immunity.

Comprehensive Addiction Treatment Center, Inc. v. Leslea

552 F. App'x 812 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 15, 2014

Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to demonstrate that any relevant rights were “clearly established” for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis. … immunity because the rights were not clearly established.

Parks v. Blanchette

144 F. Supp. 3d 282 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Nov 4, 2015

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity for the *300 retaliation and deliberate indifference claims 8 , because the rights at issue were not sufficiently clearly established at the … “A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Johnson v. King

District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 12, 2019

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 reasonable person would have … Recently, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of qualified immunity and stated that “it is again necessary to reiterate the longstanding principle that ‘clearly established law’ should not be defined ‘at a high level

Edward Godawa v. David Byrd

798 F.3d 457 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 19, 2015

Analysis Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity in cases seeking civil damages if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Clearly Established Right The qualified immunity analysis does not end with the determination that, under the facts alleged, Defendant’s use of force was objectively unreasonable.

Moore v. Andreno

505 F.3d 203 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 22, 2007

A defendant will be entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) his actions did not violate clearly established law or (2) it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his actions did not violate clearly established … Because we believe that, at the time of the search, the law was not clearly established as to whether Sines had authority to consent to a search of the study, Deputies Andreno and Palmer are entitled to qualified immunity

WATERS v. SAEZ

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 15, 2020

Henry is also entitled to qualified immunity. See Reichle v. … that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”).

Strand v. Minchuk

910 F.3d 909 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 8, 2018

For the law to be clearly established-the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis-the "existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate." … This same factual dispute also prevents us from concluding, as Officer Minchuk urges, that Strand's clearly established constitutional rights were not violated, the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry.

Jermaine Sutton v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville

700 F.3d 865 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 28, 2012

the right was clearly established. … Still, taking the facts alleged in the complaint as true, Sutton’s constitutional rights were clearly established in this context and the court properly concluded that the qualified-immunity defense fails at this juncture

Coulter v. Butler

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jul 15, 2025

“‘When a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the court must dismiss the action unless the plaintiff shows that (1) the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established … “Law is clearly established ‘if a plaintiff (1) identifies an on-point Supreme Court or published Tenth Circuit decision or (2) shows the clearly established weight of authority from other courts has found the law to be

(PC) Caruso v. Johnson

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 25, 2020

16  1 Legal Standard 2 Qualified immunity applies when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established 3 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that Ninth Circuit 15 precedent is sufficient to meet the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity).

Liggins v. Reicks

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 8, 2021

App’x 555, 558 (7th Cir. 2001) to argue that limited discovery is appropriate after the defense of qualified immunity is asserted. … See Crawford-El, 523 U.S. at 598 (stating that before allowing discovery, the district court should determine whether, assuming the truth of the plaintiff’s allegations, the official’s conduct violated clearly established

Murphy v. Grochowski

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2022

constitutional rights violation, and if so, 2) whether those rights were “clearly established” at the time of the incident.). … Based on the defendants’ failure to fully develop their argument as to qualified immunity, the report finds that they have not established this affirmative defense. See Burns v. Pa.

Valle Arrizon v. Wolf

District Court, W.D. Michigan · Oct 21, 2021

Qualified Immunity (Count II) Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity to Plaintiff’s RFRA claim in Count II. See Tanzin v. Tanvir, 141 S. … The “clearly established” standard also requires that the legal principle clearly prohibit the officer’s conduct in the particular circumstances before him.

John Doe v. Joan Delie

257 F.3d 309 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 24, 2001

Debates over defendants' qualified immunity typically turn on this "clearly established right" clause. … Davis, in short, concerned not the authorities a court may consider in determining qualified immunity, but this entirely discrete question: Is qualified immunity defeated where an appellee violates any clearly established

Wolff, Ronald v. Virgil, Tina

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Aug 4, 2023

Holloway, 510 U.S. 510, 516 (1994) (“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established … Plaintiffs oppose this motion, but as discussed in detail above, defendant Yerges is entitled to qualified immunity unless plaintiffs show that he violated a clearly established law of which a reasonable officer should

Willingham v. Loughnan

261 F.3d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 15, 2001

The Officer Defendants argue, most substantively, that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their acts violated no clearly established law at the pertinent time. … established preexisting law for qualified immunity purposes.