Case law

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’ ”).

United States v. Rosales-Bruno

676 F.3d 1017 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 6, 2012

From there, Rosales-Bruno argues that the government failed to establish that he did, in fact, employ “physical force” when he committed the offense of false imprisonment. … We find, however, that Rosales-Bruno clearly objected to specific parts of Paragraph 30 of the PSR, disputing the factual accuracy of that paragraph’s description of the conduct underlying his false imprisonment conviction

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).

Amburgey v. Doe

District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Apr 20, 2023

For the same reason, Trebuna is entitled to qualified immunity from suit. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526, 105 S. Ct. 2806, 2815, 86 L. … Ed. 2d 411 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”).

Joanne Joyce, Individually and as of the Estate of James D. Joyce v. Town of Tewksbury, Massachusetts, John R. MacKey Alfred Donovan and Robert Budryk

112 F.3d 19 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 29, 1997

Because qualified immunity turns primarily on an appraisal of existing case law, oral argument has been deemed unnecessary. … But the en banc court is agreed that qualified immunity applies, and there is less consensus about the underlying constitutional issue.

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.

Leise v. Christie

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 27, 2025

immunity because releasing the Investigative Report did not violate clearly established law. … A qualified immunity analysis considers whether: “(1) . . . the official violated a statutory right or constitutional right, and (2) . . . the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

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.”

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

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

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.

Watkins v. City of St. Louis, Missouri

District Court, E.D. Missouri · Sep 28, 2022

The Individual Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless their Burnikel v. … to qualified immunity.

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.

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

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.

Nathaniel Brent v. Wayne Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs.

555 F. App'x 519 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 6, 2014

Alternatively, they contend that the rights that the district court identified were not clearly established and, therefore, qualified immunity shields them. … But on a claim of qualified immunity, “[t]he plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the law was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Andrews v.

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.

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.

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.

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