Case law

Timothy Ryan v. Brant Putnam

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 21, 2022

“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. 1. … Defendants also argue that “|t|he absence of clearly established law on the temporal nexus issue |] entitles Drs. de Virgilio and Lewis to qualified immunity.” Mot. at 41-42.

Westry v. Leon

District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 21, 2019

“An officer conducting a search is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 243-44 (citing Anderson v. … “In the Second Circuit, qualified immunity analysis consists of a three-step inquiry examining whether there is an alleged violation of a constitutional right, whether the right was clearly established at the time of the

Crysteal Davis v. Trevor Spear

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 10, 2022

2 The district court denied qualified immunity to Clock based on a question of fact over whether he had a direct role … Officers are “entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to [the plaintiffs], establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established

Sean DeCrane v. Edward Eckart

12 F.4th 586 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 1, 2021

The district court denied Eckart qualified immunity on this argument, holding that our precedent clearly established that DeCrane would have tipped off the media as a private citizen rather than a public employee. … He next needed to overcome Eckart’s qualified-immunity defense by showing that Eckart’s conduct violated clearly established law. See Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 589.

San Jose Charter of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club v. City of San Jose

402 F.3d 962 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 4, 2005

Second, if so, was that right clearly established? Id. … Linderman argues that he nonetheless is entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established law in this case-specific context.

Baldyga

District Court, D. Colorado · Apr 6, 2026

To rebut an assertion of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must establish “(1) that the defendant violated a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) that this right was clearly established at the time of the defendant … See ECF No. 43 at 6-7 (listing cases under heading “Qualified Immunity Does Not Apply at the Pleading Stage”). Indeed, the cases referenced in the court’s analysis here clearly establish the contrary proposition.

Alfred

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Oct 16, 2025

Lee, 946 F.2d 1152, 1159 (5th Cir. 1991) (federal common law recognizes a qualified privilege protecting investigative files in an ongoing criminal investigation). … Federal courts “overwhelmingly treat this privilege as a qualified one, which is subject to a balancing process that may lead to court-ordered disclosure of privileged materials, and which may be subject to waiver by the

Morais v. Yee

162 Vt. 366 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jul 15, 1994

We agree that defendants should not have been granted summary judgment on the state law claims, but conclude that qualified immunity does not apply in this case. … However, qualified immunity does not extend to situations in which the legislature establishes a clear duty and liability for a breach of that duty.

Mark Cowart v. Erwin

837 F.3d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 13, 2016

Erwin nevertheless claims that she is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shelters state officials from liability only “to the extent that the officials’ actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” 29 “A public official is entitled to qualified

Lopez v. Stanford

District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 24, 2020

While the defense of qualified immunity may be asserted on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “the complaint itself [must] establish[] the circumstances required as a predicate to a finding of qualified immunity.” McKenna v. … The Court finds that Plaintiff’s rights were not clearly established under Packingham and that Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Angie Hall v. Katrice Sweet

666 F. App'x 469 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 16, 2016

Qualified immunity requires plaintiffs “to plead facts making out a violation of a constitutional right clearly established in a particularized sense. … A single district court opinion is not enough to pronounce a right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Salgado v. Smith

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 8, 2025

The district court granted summary judgment for Smith based on qualified immunity, finding no constitutional violation and no violation of clearly established law. Salgado appeals. We affirm. … We find it appropriate in this case to proceed directly to the second prong of qualified immunity—whether the right was clearly established. We hold that Smith did not violate Molina’s clearly established rights.

Ramos v. Flowers

429 N.J. Super. 13 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 21, 2012

In other words, “[qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” … established in 2006 for qualified-immunity purposes.

Williams v. Kenton County, KY

District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Feb 16, 2023

The qualified immunity analysis has “two steps that can be undertaken in any order: (1) whether the public official’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly … Clearly Established Under the second prong of the qualified immunity doctrine, a right is “clearly established” if “[t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear

Shell USA, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 26, 2023

Cl. 645, 659-60 (2015) (holding immunity was waived by a provision establishing “[a] late charge of five percent (5%) of any payment not paid when due . . . plus a service charge of [1.5%] per month . . . shall be made on … First, the avgas contracts contain an express waiver of immunity for CERCLA charges, and CERCLA establishes that interest is recoverable as a charge.

Roldan-Plumey v. Cerezo-Suarez

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 4, 1997

"Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability for money damages when their conduct does not violate 'clearly established' statutory authority … In earlier political discrimination cases, we found defendants entitled to qualified immunity because their allegedly unconstitutional actions took place prior to the development of clearly established law in

YAH 'TORAH v. EMRICH

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 28, 2022

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 a reasonable person would have … There is a two-step inquiry into whether qualified immunity applies: (1) whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional or federal right; and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established.

Hammond v. Anderson

District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 11, 2020

immunity grounds. … Gomez, 745 F.3d 405, 411 (10th Cir. 2014) (Qualified immunity is a defense that “shields public officials from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.”); Gutierrez v.

Marcum v. Moles

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jul 15, 2022

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to Section 1983 that applies when an officer’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights known to … Moles violated Marcum’s Eighth Amendment rights, the court must now resolve whether those rights were “clearly established” sufficiently to defeat Corporal Moles’ raising of qualified

Joanne Hedrick v. Western Reserve Care System and Forum Health

355 F.3d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 4, 2004

In order to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must establish that: “1) he is an individual with a disability; 5 2) he is ‘otherwise qualified’ to perform the job requirements … memorandum is distinguishable in that the memorandum’s tone was clearly discriminatory, see id.