Case law

Robison v. Department of Insurance, Finanical Institutions and Professional Registration

District Court, E.D. Missouri · Mar 1, 2022

In a claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, qualified immunity protects a government official from liability unless his conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person … [174], Plaintiff has not shown he has a “clearly established” constitutional or statutory right to be on the List.9 Pearson, 555 U.S. at 231 (explaining qualified immunity protects a government official from

Elston v. Collins

District Court, E.D. Missouri · Nov 15, 2019

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would know … right was clearly established at the time of the violation.”

Villot v. Varner

465 F. Supp. 2d 439 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 2006

The “clearly established Federal law” which governs ineffective- assistance of counsel claims is the two-pronged standard set forth in Strickland v. … Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 363 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (stating that the “Strickland test qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court’ ”).

Salahuddin v. Goord

467 F.3d 263 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 27, 2006

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public 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 … Summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is not appropriate because it was clearly established law at the time of the alleged violations that religious exercise may not be denied without any reason.

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”).

Blouin ex rel. Estate of Pouliot v. Spitzer

356 F.3d 348 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 2, 2004

The court did, however, determine that they were entitled to qualified immunity, because “plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of a clearly established right. … Qualified Immunity We now consider qualified immunity, which shields a government official acting in an official capacity from suit for damages under § 1983 unless the official “violated clearly established rights of which

DeNigris v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

861 F. Supp. 2d 185 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 9, 2012

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that Defendant Frisch is entitled to qualified immunity in her individual capacity. … Accordingly, a grant of qualified immunity is wholly inappropriate at this stage of the proceedings. *197 III.

Steven Manning v. Gary Miller, Federal Bureau of Investigation Agent, and Robert Buchan, Federal Bureau of Investigation Agent

355 F.3d 1028 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 21, 2004

Similarly, Manning is able to meet the second prong of the qualified immunity test: his constitutional due process right was “clearly established” at the time he asserts it was violated. … established at that time, Agents Buchan and Miller cannot prevail on their qualified immunity claim.

Harvey v. City of Galveston

District Court, S.D. Texas · Jul 17, 2025

Hanna, 726 F.3d 631, 638 (5th Cir. 2013) (qualified immunity requires alleging a violation of a clearly established constitutional right at the time of the conduct). … Because the complaint plausibly alleges facts supporting a violation of clearly established right under the Fourteenth Amendment, Roy is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

Tanzin v. Tanvir

592 U.S. 43 · Supreme Court of the United States · Dec 10, 2020

By the time Congress enacted RFRA, this Court had interpreted the modern ver- sion of §1983 to permit monetary recovery against officials who violated “clearly established” federal law. E.g., Procu- nier v. … who flout clearly established law,” Tr. of Oral Arg. 42; see District of Co- lumbia v.

Estate of De'Angelo Brown v. West

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 30, 2022

Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007 (8th Cir. 2020) (examining when a right is clearly established for qualified immunity analysis). Moore, 514 F.3d at 760. … Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007 (8th Cir. 2020) (examining when a right is clearly established for qualified immunity analysis).

Marina P. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security

214 Ariz. 326 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Feb 20, 2007

To the extent findings are not adequately supported by the record, they are clearly erroneous. Grant v. Ariz. Pub. Serv. Co., 133 Ariz. 434, 456 , 652 P.2d 507, 529 (1982). B. … prevented Mother from parenting the children that Mother has substantially neglected or willfully refused to remedy. ¶30 Missing one visit and being late for two others fourteen months prior to the severance trial hardly qualifies

Hinshaw v. Smith

436 F.3d 997 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 30, 2006

(internal marks omitted). 16 Qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability under § 1983 when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The court held that the legislators, who were not the decisionmakers, were entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established federal right for an individual "to prevent legislators from exercising their

Commonwealth v. Packer

568 Pa. 481 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 31, 2002

This interpretation is contrary to the well-established cannon of construction that courts should generally apply qualifying words or phrases to the words immediately preceding them. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1903; Midboe v. … Qualifying words “do not extend to or include other words, phrases, or clauses more remote, unless such extension or inclusion is clearly required by the intent or meaning of the context or disclosed by an examination of

Borton v. City of Dothan

734 F. Supp. 2d 1237 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 24, 2010

Clearly Established Having found sufficient evidence of excessive force on the part of Officer Schulmerich, the court addresses the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry concerning whether the constitutional right … was clearly established at the time of the tasing.

Chimelis v. County of Suffolk

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 11, 2025

Qualified Immunity Government actors may invoke qualified immunity to shield themselves from liability for civil damages “‘when [their] conduct does not violate clearly … Qualified Immunity Police Defendants then assert qualified immunity for Plaintiff’s excessive force claim because they contend that there is no “clearly established law

Durstein v. Alexander

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 20, 2022

Qualified Immunity Although qualified immunity is expansive, a government official “who performs an act clearly established to be beyond the scope of his discretionary authority … However, “in considering whether constitutional rights were clearly established for qualified-immunity purposes, we view the issue from ‘the layman’s perspective.’” Bland v.

Quintanilla v. Bryson

District Court, S.D. Georgia · Mar 20, 2020

Under the Eleventh Circuit’s framework for applying this step of the qualified immunity analysis, a plaintiff must show that the allegedly violated right was “clearly established” in one of three ways. … Irvin, 496 F.3d 1189, 1209 (11th Cir. 2007) (district court erred in denying qualified immunity where plaintiff did not show law was clearly established). The Court’s own research has likewise revealed none.

SANDERS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2025

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary acts from civil liability so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Therefore, the Court need not assess the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See Ely.

Michael v. State

115 P.3d 517 · Alaska Supreme Court · Jun 9, 2005

Applying the clearly erroneous standard of review, the court of appeals affirmed the superior court’s rejection of Michael’s proposed mitigating factors. … ’s rejection of Michael’s proposed mitigating factors under a clearly erroneous standard.