Case law

Ian Tuuamalemalo v. Shahann Greene

946 F.3d 471 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 24, 2019

established law, whether the law clearly proscribed the actions the defendant claims he took. … Scott moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

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

Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 4, 2009

ASHCROFT lates the Constitution, we should still grant him qualified immunity because that constitutional right was not “clearly established” in March 2003, when al-Kidd was arrested. We disagree. … Ohio, was certainly clearly established.

Cunningham ex rel Gaines v. Baltimore Cnty.

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 2024

Because the law was not clearly established at the time, qualified immunity is proper. … Alternatively, the Defendants argued that Corporal Ruby was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law.

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.

Douglas Echols v. Spencer Lawton

913 F.3d 1313 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 25, 2019

The district court also ruled that Lawton enjoys qualified immunity because Echols's complaint failed to allege the violation of a right that was clearly established when Lawton sent his letter. *1319 II. … To defeat Lawton's qualified immunity, Echols must also prove that Lawton violated a constitutional right that "was 'clearly established' at the time of the challenged conduct." Plumhoff v.

Mathis v. Centurion Correctional Healthcare of New Mexico, LLC

District Court, D. New Mexico · Jun 16, 2023

or whether the law was clearly established. … That case is insufficient to overcome the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity defense. Cf. Cummings, 913 F.3d at 1244 (“Plaintiffs' reliance on Gardner is patently misguided.

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.

Hartzell v. Marana Unified School District

130 F.4th 722 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 5, 2025

“Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Krainski merely held that “the doctrine of qualified immunity protects state actors when the constitutional right at issue was not ‘clearly established’ at the time of the actions at issue.” 616 F.3d at 970 (quoting Saucier

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.”

Williams v. Deputy Warden McKay

District Court, D. Idaho · Mar 31, 2022

Because determining clearly- established law is also the foundation for a qualified immunity defense, the Court includes qualified immunity considerations in its analysis. 3 Unless the parties can show otherwise … Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 12 (2015): The dispositive question [for qualified immunity] is “whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.” Ibid.

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

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.

California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.

445 U.S. 97 · Supreme Court of the United States · Mar 3, 1980

The “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed” goal of the state policy was to “displace unfettered business freedom in the matter of the establishment and relocation of automobile dealerships.” Id., at 109 . … These decisions establish two standards for antitrust immunity under Parker v. Brown .

James v. Lee

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 1, 2020

Qualified Immunity 21 “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly 22 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate 17 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

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.

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.

Barbara Wyatt v. Rhonda Fletcher

718 F.3d 496 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 31, 2013

This requirement establishes a high bar. When there is no controlling authority specifically prohibiting a defendant’s conduct, the law is not clearly established for the purposes of defeating qualified immunity. … Because this is a qualified immunity case, a balancing of interests requires a clearly established right.

Jones v. Norwood

2013 Ohio 350 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 2013

. {¶51} The doctrine of federal qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In the context of the qualified-immunity analysis, we affirmed the trial court’s determination that Jones had shown the violation of her clearly established procedural-due-process right to a predeprivation hearing.

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