Case law

McNair v. Bace

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 5, 2025

McNair has stated a viable claim, he is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of the incident that his actions constituted an excessive use of force. ECF No. 38-1 at 14. … established for any future qualified immunity cases involving similar circumstances.”

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

Moorehead v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ALLENTOWN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2024

Coffey, 905 F.3d 138, 144 (3d Cir. 2018) (granting qualified immunity for lack of clearly established law regarding electronic communications in the workplace); United States v. … But if they weren’t, these unsettled issues would weigh heavily in favor of qualified immunity.

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.

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.

Saez v. Judicial Branch

District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 31, 2025

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 244 (2009) (recognizing that the qualified immunity “inquiry turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time … See id. at 231 (“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

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).

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

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.

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.”

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

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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”).

Jensen v. Conrad

747 F.2d 185 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Oct 5, 1984

But if the underlying substantive right has not yet been clearly established, good faith immunity may be invoked regardless of the language of the statute. … The Court reasoned that if the law was not clearly established, immunity should be applied at the pretrial stage so as to minimize disruption of government activities.