Case law

Will El v. City of Pittsburgh

975 F.3d 327 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 16, 2020

In the familiar qualified immunity analysis, the court asks “(1) whether the officer violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established, such that ‘it would [have been] clear to a reasonable … of the qualified immunity analysis: “whether the right was clearly established.”

Sabia v. Neville

165 Vt. 515 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Oct 18, 1996

They also argued that their actions were protected by qualified immunity. … Based on an objective standard, defendants did not violate any clearly established rights of plaintiff.

Benford v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

554 F. Supp. 145 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 22, 1982

Therefore, officials who act beyond their scope of authority lack standing to assert a qualified immunity defense even in those instances where their behavior does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory … . *150 If the law the congressional defendants are charged with violating was clearly established, their qualified immunity argument must be rejected without further consideration.

Geraldine Nicholson v. Miguel Gutierrez

935 F.3d 685 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 21, 2019

Once a defendant has raised qualified immunity as a defense to a claim, a plaintiff must show “(1) that the right was violated; and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.” … Even if a constitutional violation occurred, qualified immunity nevertheless applies unless the violation was clearly established.

David Andrews v. Robert Scuilli

853 F.3d 690 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 10, 2017

If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity. … This leaves us with the question of whether the rights at issue were clearly established at the time.18 We need not dwell on this.

Torres v. Kernan

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 13, 2020

A court considering a claim of 8 qualified immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual 9 constitutional right and whether such right was clearly established, such that it would … Even if the 17 allegations of the complaint are sufficient to state a claim for violation of § 5301, defendants are 18 entitled to qualified immunity because of the lack of clearly established law. 19 In Nelson

Barnes v. Fedele

337 F. Supp. 3d 227 · District Court, W.D. New York · Oct 2, 2018

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for civil damages "if his conduct did not violate plaintiff's *231 clearly established rights or if it would have been objectively reasonable for … The qualified immunity defense in this case largely turns on two considerations: whether the statutory or constitutional right in question was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, and, if so, whether

Tammi Taylor v. Pam Palmer

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 7, 2023

Taylor to overcome the mayor’s qualified immunity by showing (1) that the mayor violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct … What matters here is not how this issue would be resolved on the merits but only that the law was not clearly established—so the mayor has qualified immunity.

McCall v. Williams

52 F. Supp. 2d 611 · District Court, D. South Carolina · May 19, 1999

Although the right to due process of law, for example, is quite clearly established, the qualified immunity analysis law is not “to be applied at this level of generality.” Anderson v. … The court notes that the Kopf case, upon which the Vathekan court relied for its clearly established law, did not involve an assertion of the qualified immunity defense.

Lorraine Gormley v. Latanya Wood-El (069717)

218 N.J. 72 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 30, 2014

It held, however, that those rights were not clearly established at the time of the assault on Gormley and therefore dismissed the claims against the officials on the ground of qualified immunity. 1 Gormley v. … The Appellate Division, nevertheless, concluded that that right was not clearly established at the time of the assault on Gormley and therefore granted defendants qualified immunity and dismissed the federal civil-rights

Yount v. Millington

117 N.M. 95 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 1993

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Government officials are entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, provided that their actions are objectively reasonable in the light of clearly established law. Harlow v. … We first note that the allegedly violated law that must be clearly established in the context of a qualified-immunity analysis is federal law, not state law. Estate of Himelstein v.

Jeffrey Mannoia v. David G. Farrow, Detective

476 F.3d 453 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 7, 2007

In Saucier, the Supreme Court established a two-part test for resolving the issue of qualified immunity. … “Consulting a prosecutor may not give an officer absolute immunity ... but it goes far to establish qualified immunity.” Kijonka v. Seitzinger, 363 F.3d 645, 648 (7th Cir.2004).

Commonwealth v. Markun

185 A.3d 1026 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 1, 2018

As described by the United States Supreme Court: The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Pearson’s description of qualified immunity as providing immunity from suit, rather than a mere defense to liability, describes this situation.

The Estate of Marquette F. Cummings Jr. v. Warden Carter Davenport

906 F.3d 934 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 2, 2018

And he maintained that no authority clearly established that Davenport’s actions were unconstitutional. … On the contrary, the Court has explained that “[t]he conception animating the qualified immunity doctrine . . . is that ‘where an official’s duties legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not

Linda J. Clifford v. MaineGeneral Medical Center

91 A.3d 567 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 22, 2014

of qualified immunity is (1) whether the plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated, and (2) whether those rights were so clearly established that reasonable defendants would have known that their specific actions … Lyons, 666 A.2d at 99; see Webb, 1999 ME 74, ¶ 8, 728 A.2d 1261 (stating that qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability under section 1983 if their conduct does not violate clearly established

Dickerson v. McClellan

844 F. Supp. 391 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Feb 17, 1994

The appropriate standard is taken to be whether disputes clearly exist with regard to material facts on which the qualified immunity defense is based or whether, on the undisputed facts, qualified immunity is clearly unjustified … In such a case, granting summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is clearly inappropriate.

Desiree Martinez v. Channon High

91 F.4th 1022 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 26, 2024

The panel nevertheless held that Officer High was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in 2013 that Officer High’s conduct violated Martinez’s substantive due process rights. … based on the lack of any clearly established law.

Youngstown v. Carrier Servs. Group, Inc.

2026 Ohio 1032 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 2026

qualified immunity claim. … .): Qualified immunity shields a government official from civil liability unless (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that right was “clearly established” at the

Rufus West v. Gregory Grams

607 F. App'x 561 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 22, 2015

immunity. … It has never been clearly established that inmates have a right to inmate-led group worship under the First Amendment.

Ryan v. City of Augusta

622 A.2d 74 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 1, 1993

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, government officials performing discretion *76 ary functions are immune from suit in actions brought pursuant to § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Because their actions violated Ryan’s clearly established rights, Logan and Todd are not entitled to qualified immunity. III.