Case law

ESTATE OF FRANCES D. DEROSA v. MURPHY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 21, 2025

. ¶¶ 79, 80, 94.)2 On May 12, 2023, Judge Quraishi granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that because no clearly established right was violated, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … “Officials demonstrate they are entitled to qualified immunity only if they can show that a reasonable person in their position at the relevant time could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct

White v. Miyares

District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 5, 2025

As the Supreme Court has stated, “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal … The qualified-immunity inquiry asks whether “the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right” and, if so, “whether the right was clearly established.” Saucier v.

Molinelli v. Tucker

901 F.2d 13 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 9, 1990

The court also rejected the qualified immunity defense, noting, based on testing procedures deemed analogous to urinalysis, that the law was clearly established in October 1986 that the defendants’ conduct was subject to … The right the government official is alleged to have violated is “clearly established,” and hence beyond any qualified immunity, when the “contours” of the right are sufficiently unambiguous so that a reasonable official

Wendell Smith v. Pike County, Kentucky

338 F. App'x 481 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 10, 2009

The district court held that in the absence of a clearly established constitutional right to the specific medical treatment in question, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … Peed, 195 F.3d 692, 695 (4th Cir. 1999), the district court correctly held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. See Saucier v.

Woodhead v. Ridener

District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jun 8, 2022

to juror to conclude that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right. … However, under the present circumstances, the defendants cannot be said to have violated any clearly established constitutional right. Accordingly, they are entitled to qualified immunity. 2.

Onie Pena v. Dallas County Hospital Dist

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 23, 2015

Ct. 1765, 1776 (2015) (“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”). … Qualified immunity thus attaches unless the law is clearly established that the defendant’s conduct amounted to a seizure.

Kitrich Powell v. James Gibbons

453 F. App'x 712 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 11, 2011

Dismissal was proper on Powell’s claim concerning the opening of his legal mail outside of his presence because defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (concluding that state officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law); Sherman v.

Limon v. City of Laredo

District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 4, 2025

Qualified immunity shields government officials from § 1983 liability unless their conduct violates a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. Mace v. … To overcome qualified immunity on his excessive force claim, Christian must show that Officer Martinez violated a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established. Guerra v.

Paez v. Nutsch

District Court, D. Nebraska · May 12, 2022

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability in a 42 U.S.C. §1983 action when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense for which the defendant carries the burden of proof. The plaintiff, however, must demonstrate that the law is clearly established.” Sparr v.

Kerrin Barrett v. PAE Government Services, Inc.

975 F.3d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 15, 2020

of their conduct was clearly established at the time.” … Because the undisputed evidence establishes that the Arlington County defendants had probable cause to detain Plaintiff, qualified immunity bars her § 1983 claim under the first prong of the qualified immunity test, and

Blaine Sallier v. Deborah Brooks and Christine Ramsey

343 F.3d 868 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 18, 2003

In 1993 in Lavado , when faced with a qualified immunity issue, we held that it was clearly established as of 1987 that a prisoner’s mail could not be opened and read in an arbitrary and capricious fashion. 992 F.2d at 610 … This analysis brings us to the third step of the qualified immunity: whether Sallier has offered sufficient evidence to indicate that the defendants’ actions were objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established

Cronin v. Town of Amesbury

895 F. Supp. 375 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 25, 1995

Qualified Immunity In any event, Koelsch asserts the defense of qualified immunity. … The qualified immunity inquiry in this context is a familiar one: Qualified immunity shields government official performing discretionary functions from civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Jones v. County of Tulare, California

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 20, 2023

In other words, a “public official is entitled to qualified 9 immunity unless (1) ‘the facts . . . show that the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right;’ 10 and (2) the right at issue ‘was clearly established … Granting summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity 4 is “improper if, under the plaintiff's version of the facts, and in light of the clearly established law, 5 a reasonable officer could not have believed

Wiley v. Doory

14 F.3d 993 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 27, 1994

The only issue before this Court is whether Doory is entitled to qualified immunity. 6 I Qualified immunity shields a governmental official from liability for civil monetary damages if the officer’s “conduct does not violate … Thus, appellant Doory is entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, the order of the district court regarding the availability of qualified immunity to Doory as to the Fifth Amendment claims is REVERSED. .

Sciotto Ex Rel. Sciotto v. Marple Newtown School District

81 F. Supp. 2d 559 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 1999

Qualified Immunity Defendants James Smith and Stu Nathans claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs’ suit. The defendants have met their burden of pleading a qualified immunity defense, Gomez v. … a right for qualified immunity purposes.

Holland v. Valhi Inc.

22 F.3d 968 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 19, 1994

Amalgamated failed to establish that its computation, in fact, was consistent with the requirement of the regulations. … Pensions § 13 (1987); see also ERISA § 3(35), 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (35), and if "qualified” under 26 U.S.C. § 401 et seq., is subject to favorable Internal Revenue Service treatment. .

FREEMAN v. SANCHEZ

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 20, 2025

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability for civil damages under section 1983 … clearly established right”).

Wallingford v. Olson

592 F.3d 888 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 25, 2010

Deputy Olson appeals the dis *890 trict court’s denial of qualified immunity. We reverse. I. … a constitutional right’ and (2) whether the asserted constitutional right is clearly established.

Lojuk v. Johnson

770 F.2d 619 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 8, 1985

and qualified immunity. … Plaintiff argued in the alternative that even if defendants had not violated clearly established constitutional rights, they should be denied qualified immunity because they had violated a state administrative regulation.

Anita Arrington-Bey v. City of Bedford Heights

858 F.3d 988 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 24, 2017

Qualified immunity. … Because no case clearly established the unlawfulness of the decisions made during Omar’s arrest and detention, the officers involved are entitled to qualified immunity.