Case law

DEDURO v. THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 18, 2025

A court analyzing a defense of qualified immunity must determine both (1) whether the plaintiff has shown a violation of a constitutional right and, (2) whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged … However, even if Kane did create such notice, single out-of-circuit case is insufficient to clearly establish a right” for purposes of qualified immunity. Porter v. Pa.

Martinez v. Beggs

563 F.3d 1082 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 21, 2009

When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established … In this case, because defendants did not violate Ginn’s constitutional rights, we need not address whether those rights were clearly established.

Garanin v. City of Scranton

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2022

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 … the right was clearly established.

Christopher Kiesling v. Ross Spurlock

859 F.3d 529 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 9, 2017

The doctrine of qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … As such, the district court erred in determining that Spurlock was not entitled to qualified immunity. 7 Accordingly, the district court’s order denying qualified immunity as to Officer Spurlock is reversed. .Contrary to

In Re STATE of Texas Ex Rel. David P. WEEKS

391 S.W.3d 117 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 16, 2013

for mandamus relief when the factual scenario has never been precisely addressed but the principle of law has been clearly established. *123 B. … establishes that proposition.

Ferebee v. Gilley

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Aug 25, 2022

Because Defendants have not shown that this right was not clearly established in 2020 when the claims in this case arose, they cannot sustain a qualified immunity defense.1 Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (“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

Jeanniton v. City and County of Honolulu

District Court, D. Hawaii · Aug 4, 2021

clearly established.” … The officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the law at the time of the incident did not clearly establish that the officer’s conduct violated the United States Constitution

Gary L. Higgason, M.D. v. Robert F. Stephens

288 F.3d 868 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 1, 2002

Qualified immunity grants government officials engaged in discretionary activities immunity from individual liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … ” in nature, then the prosecutor would only be entitled to qualified immunity.

GARCIA v. CITY OF PERTH AMBOY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 4, 2024

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. … In other words, if the official’s conduct violated a clearly established right, qualified immunity does not apply. See id. “[C]ourts are free to address the two elements in whichever order they deem appropriate.”

Rutledge v. Hatton

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 2, 2020

To determine whether an 15 officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must consider whether (1) the officer’s conduct 16 violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time … Appx. 415, 418 (9th Cir. 27 2002) (denying qualified immunity because it is clearly established that refusing requests from a 1 indifference to medical needs).

Singer v. Fulton County Sheriff

63 F.3d 110 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 9, 1995

immunity. … See Mozzochi, 959 F.2d at 1179-80 (probable cause); Magnotti, 918 F.2d at 368 (qualified immunity). As noted above, there was probable cause to arrest and charge Singer with petit larceny.

Cheryl Ann Piechowicz, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of David Scott Piechowicz Sherrie Marie Waldrup, a Minor by Cheryl Ann Piechowicz, Her Mother and Next Friend Melva Kennedy, "To the Use of Walter Piechowicz" "To the Use of Florence Piechowicz" "To the Use of Reliance Insurance Company" John I. Kennedy, Jr., Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Susan C. Kennedy v. United States of America James Savage, Individually and as Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Maryland John Ryan, Individually and as an Agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration of the United States, Cheryl Ann Piechowicz, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of David Scott Piechowicz Sherrie Marie Waldrup, a Minor by Cheryl Ann Piechowicz, Her Mother and Next Friend John I. Kennedy, Jr., Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Susan C. Kennedy Melva Kennedy, "To the Use of Walter Piechowicz" "To the Use of Florence Piechowicz" "To the Use of Reliance Insurance Company" v. United States of America James Savage, Individually and as Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Maryland John Ryan, Individually and as an Agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration of the United States

885 F.2d 1207 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 20, 1989

it did not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (allocating to the plaintiff the burden to "state a claim of violation of clearly established law" to avoid dismissal based on qualified immunity).

Wilson v. Escambia Board of Education

District Court, S.D. Alabama · Aug 21, 2025

“The qualified immunity defense shields ‘government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “Generally speaking, it is proper to grant a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds when the ‘complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.’”

KAISER v. DIXON

District Court, N.D. Florida · Oct 24, 2024

Additionally, FDC Defendants raise the defense of qualified immunity in their motion to dismiss. The throughline requirement in each of these areas is the presence of a constitutional violation. … to the next step of determining if a constitutional right was clearly established”).

Butler v. Elle

281 F.3d 1014 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 26, 2002

Such immunity is an affirmative defense that bars civil liability damages insofar as the official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … In contrast to qualified immunity, absolute immunity does not require the official to have acted reasonably or in accordance with clearly established law.

Foust v. McNeill

310 F.3d 849 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 12, 2002

Thigpen even tional right was not “clearly established” in had judicial authorization to seize certain 1998. … For a right to be “clearly established” in “fixtures” in the building, and he might have the context of qualified immunity, concluded the only reasonable way to do so

Fambrough v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 14, 2023

Dismissing for qualified immunity on this ground is sometimes difficult because the clearly established inquiry may turn on case-specific details that must be fleshed out in discovery.” Id. at 765. … In sum, dismissal on qualified immunity grounds is proper when the “complaint establishes the defense.” Siefert v.

Martin v. Fuller-Brisbon

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 1, 2025

’ actions contravened clearly established law at the time of the incident. … established).

Lunnon v. United States

District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 23, 2020

demonstrating a violation of a clearly-established right, qualified immunity is a viable defense in cases where RICO violations have been alleged. See Brown v. … Nationsbank Corp., 188 F.3d 579, 588 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that FBI agents were entitled to qualified immunity for RICO claims against them because the rights asserted were not clearly established at the time of defendants

Ahmed v. Detroit

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 17, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defendant also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity, which shields officials from civil liability if their conduct “does not violate clearly … (finding that the rights at issue were clearly established in 1975); see also Mills, 869 F.3d at 486-87 (denying qualified immunity on malicious prosecution, fabrication, and withholding evidence claims to DNA analyst