Case law

Thompson v. Ohio State University

990 F. Supp. 2d 801 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 6, 2014

It is not necessarily true that the exact factual circumstances alleged in a given case must have been found to be a constitutional violation before a right can be “clearly established” for purposes of a qualified immunity … Salimbene’s claim of qualified immunity, it is clearly established that a public official’s retaliation against an individual for exercising First Amendment rights violates 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .

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.

Garcia v. Does 1-40

779 F.3d 84 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 21, 2014

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages when one of two conditions is satisfied: (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was … Defendants bear the burden of establishing qualified immunity. Vincent v. Yelich, 718 F.3d 157, 166 (2d Cir.2013).

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.

Olmsted v. Douglas County

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 31, 2023

Government officials are not entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Rivas-Villegas v. … See Id. at 657 (“Our qualified-immunity cases illustrate the importance of drawing inferences in favor of the nonmovant, even when . . . a court decides only the clearly-established prong of the standard.”); Anderson, 477

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.

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

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

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

Lundgren v. Freeman

307 F.2d 104 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 1962

Civ.P., which provides that: “findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous * * Therefore, we may not substitute our judgment if conflicting inferences may be drawn from the established facts by reasonable … Like the issue of wrongful purpose, we feel that the issue as to the existence of quasi-arbitrators’ qualified immunity is a question of fact.

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.

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

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.”).

Armijo Ex Rel. Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson

601 F.3d 1065 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 13, 2010

Qualified immunity “protects governmental 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 … The qualified immunity inquiry has two elements: whether a constitutional violation occurred, and whether the violated right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 815-16 .

(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).

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

Terebesi v. Torreso

764 F.3d 217 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 21, 2014

But the doctrine of qualified immunity shields both state and federal officials from suit “unless [1] the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that [2] was clearly established at the time of the challenged … “An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.” 20 Mendoza v.

Beneficial Consumer Discount Company v. David R. Poltonowicz John Poltonowicz the Internal Revenue Service of the United States of America

47 F.3d 91 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 9, 1995

of the well-established injunction against recognizing a waiver of federal sovereign immunity not evidenced in the statutory text. … Accordingly, a showing of a violation of federal law will not alone suffice to qualify a claim under the FTCA's waiver. Nuclear Transp. & Storage, Inc. v.