Case law

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

Tyehimba v. Cook County D.O.C.

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 15, 2024

To defeat a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must plead facts that show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged … of clearly established law.”)

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.

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.

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

Brown v. Tromba

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 29, 2026

City of Tulare, 107 F.4th 894, 898 (9th Cir. 2024) (“Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness … of their conduct was clearly established at the time.”

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.

Southerland v. City of New York

652 F.3d 209 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 2, 2012

Principles of Qualified Immunity 16 Qualified immunity shields public officials "from 17 liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not 18 violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … "In general, public 21 officials are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct 22 does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or 23 (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe

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

Warren Armstead v. Keith Fields

638 F. App'x 601 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 7, 2016

We review district court rulings on qualified immunity and summary judgment de novo. Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir. 2013). … Qualified immunity involves a two-step inquiry: (1) whether the officers’ conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation such

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.

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

Castro v. Utah County Sheriff's Department

District Court, D. Utah · Sep 20, 2024

from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.”47 “Once an individual defendant asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff carries a two-part burden to show: (1) that the … When defining a flagrant violation, the Spackman court essentially adopted the same standard for determining whether a right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Melinda Butler v. Sarah Harter

152 So. 3d 705 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 1, 2014

Work-Product Privilege and Motions for Attorney’s Fees It is well-established that “work product retains its qualified immunity after the original litigation terminates, regardless of whether or not the subsequent … The federal district court held that counsel waived attorney-client privilege when he testified regarding the basis for the offer, and he clearly waived the privilege when he established a record regarding the basis for

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.

Ginter v. Skahill

298 F. App'x 161 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 28, 2008

In the alternative, even if Ginter had established a violation of her constitutional rights, Skahill would be entitled to a defense of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability if their actions do not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

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

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

Wolfe v. Hocking County Sheriff's Department

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 18, 2024

Sept. 8, 2021) (affirming a grant of qualified immunity on the clearly established prong where officers searched the plaintiff’s home and seized property listed in a divorce order); Bates v. … Because Defendants raise qualified immunity, Plaintiff must allege sufficient facts showing that (1) Defendants’ conduct violated his Second Amendment right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time.

Flemming, Jayvon v. Bohnsack

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Dec 23, 2020

I also conclude that Bohnsack is not entitled to qualified immunity. See Locke v. … Haessig, 788 F.3d 662, 666 (7th Cir. 2015) (“The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or