Case law

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.

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

Monongalia County Commission A/K/A Monongalia County Sheriff's Department and John Doe Deputy v. Amanda F. Stewart, Individually and/or as Administrator of the Estate of John D. Stewart, Jr.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 14, 2024

Code § 29-12A-5 (establishing immunities from liability). … Indeed, “It is well established that . . . common law qualified immunity [is] available only for the State, its agencies, officials, and/or employees.” Kent v.

Tabb v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2009

immunity. … that right was clearly established — in either order).

Santor v. Laster

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 25, 2020

Qualified Immunity 2 Qualified immunity applies when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established 3 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. White v. … City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that Ninth Circuit precedent is 15 sufficient to meet the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity).

Roe v. Johnson County

District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 18, 2021

No. 284—is needed to establish that Blankenship is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Jan. 18, 2021) (Under the clearly-established prong, “‘the dispositive question is whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’

Duncan v. Walker

533 U.S. 167 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 18, 2001

V) establishes the limitation period for filing § 2254 petitions in state capital cases that arise from jurisdictions meeting the "opt-in" requirements of § 2261. … In fact, the "argument from neighbors" shows only that Congress might have spoken more clearly than it did. It cannot prove the statutory point.

Boles Et Al. v. Chavis

454 U.S. 907 · Supreme Court of the United States · Oct 13, 1981

ARREY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 2025

“An official sued under § 1983 for an alleged constitutional violation is entitled to qualified immunity unless [the official] (1) violated a constitutional right that (2) was clearly established when he acted.” … So, Zebley is entitled to qualified immunity “if a reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed” to arrest the Arrey “in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers

Roe v. Johnson County

District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 1, 2021

No. 284—is needed to establish that Blankenship is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Jan. 18, 2021) (Under the clearly-established prong, “‘the dispositive question is whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’

Sammye R. Holloway v. Sally Brush Clermont County, Ohio

220 F.3d 767 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 31, 2000

“[T]he actions of-a prosecutor are not absolutely immune merely because they are performed by a prosecutor. Qualified immunity represents the norm.... … Even if such motivations could legitimate Brush’s actions, it would be through qualified immunity, not absolute immunity, and she has not claimed qualified immunity.

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.

Nicholas Narducci v. Gregory Moore

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 9, 2009

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from lawsuits for damages when their conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Here, because defendants argue that Narducci’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated and that the violation of this right was not “clearly established,” we will consider both issues in turn. A.

Hazle v. Ford Motor Co.

464 Mich. 456 · Michigan Supreme Court · Jul 3, 2001

Therefore, we hold that a plaintiff is not required to provide evidence that he is at least as qualified as the successful candidate in order to establish a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas. … We caution the bench and bar not to rely on Lytle for the proposition that a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination can be established merely by providing evidence that a qualified minority candidate was rejected

Francis v. Coughlin

891 F.2d 43 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 4, 1989

To defeat an official’s claim of qualified immunity, the individual's right must have been clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id. … clearly established.

Collins v. County of Alameda

District Court, N.D. California · May 3, 2021

Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1074-75 8 (9th Cir. 2001) (in discussing qualified immunity, noting that “there is a clearly established 9 constitutional due process right not to be subjected to criminal charges on the basis … (if this was a prosecutorial decision) or at least qualified immunity (e.g., if she did not know the 15 full circumstances related to the second photo lineup).

Pagán v. Calderón

448 F.3d 16 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 16, 2006

To the extent that Calderon’s denied motion rested on the ground of qualified immunity, she appealed. See Mitchell v. … In sequential order, “[w]e consider (i) whether the plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation; (ii) whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the putative

Emma Jane Prospero v. Deputy Ryan Sullivan

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 4, 2025

“[W]hen legal questions of qualified immunity are raised—either to determine whether any constitutional right was violated or whether the violation of that right was clearly established—interlocutory … Because a defendant’s “assertion of qualified immunity can be defeated only by a showing of ‘clearly established’ law, we will review not for actual probable cause but rather for ‘arguable’ probable

Roxana Santos v. Frederick County Board of Commissioners

725 F.3d 451 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 7, 2013

established’ for purposes of qualified immunity”); see also Hope v. … established for qualified immunity purposes.”

Cousins v. Lockyer

568 F.3d 1063 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 15, 2009

qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.