Case law

Lipsky v. Cronin

District Court, D. South Dakota · Mar 31, 2025

immunity’s second prong, the clearly established prong.” … Thus, even if any deprivation did occur, it was not clearly established, and Captain Wainman is entitled to qualified immunity.

Celeste Thomas v. Jennifer Myers

489 F. App'x 116 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 17, 2012

Once the defendant raises qualified immunity, however, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who must demonstrate both that the official violated a constitutional or statutory right, and that the right was so clearly established … “When a defendant appeals the denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, we review de novo whether the complaint alleges violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Heyne v. Metro.

Raub v. Bowen

960 F. Supp. 2d 602 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Aug 2, 2013

Nevertheless, there are some clearly established standards to guide a reasonable police officer who detains a person for mental evaluation. … Goo-den filed suit and the officers invoked qualified immunity as a defense. The district court denied qualified immunity, as did a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit. Id.

R.Q. v. West Virginia Division of Corrections

West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 10, 2015

Therefore, she asserts that D.F. does not enjoy qualified immunity in this matter. … The WVRJCFA argued that the training, supervision, and retention of correctional officers were inherently discretionary acts for which the State enjoys immunity and that A.B. failed to identify a clearly established right

City of Phoenix v. Yarnell

184 Ariz. 310 · Arizona Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1995

Without ever reaching the issue of the detectives’ immunity, the court concluded that the detectives did not violate Smith’s clearly established constitutional rights. … What the County missed is that the City escaped liability not because of the detectives' qualified immunity but because there was no clearly established constitutional right that was violated. .

People v. Nicholson

297 Mich. App. 191 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 2012

However, contrary to the parties’ position, we conclude that a person can fail to qualify for immunity from arrest pursuant to § 4(a), but still be entitled to immunity from prosecution or penalty. … This argument is contrary to the plain language of the statute as we have interpreted it, and it is inconsistent with the clearly established law that permits police officers to arrest individuals who commit misdemeanor offenses

Rivers v. Fischer

390 F. App'x 22 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 13, 2010

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity for his actions unless his conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known. Pearson v. … The Second Circuit has held that a right is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes if “(1) the law is defined with reasonable clarity, (2) the Supreme Court or the Second Circuit has recognized the right, and

Font v. Carr

867 S.W.2d 873 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Dec 16, 1993

Thus, Font must show he established his affirma- *876 five defense of official immunity as a matter of law. Font claimed absolute immunity from the suit and alternatively, qualified immunity. … The threshold question is what must a public official show to establish the defense of qualified immunity. Texas law and federal law differ in this respect.

Brown v. Montoya

662 F.3d 1152 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 8, 2011

Clearly Established For Mr. Brown to overcome Officer Montoya’s qualified immunity, the procedural due process right must be “clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … Because the issue is whether Officer Montoya has qualified immunity, it is sufficient to determine whether the alleged conduct violates a clearly established substantive due process right.15 No clearly established Supreme

Coleman v. Merritt

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 22, 2025

The second step of the qualified immunity analysis provides that defendants are 22 entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or 23 constitutional rights of which a … Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the right allegedly violated 2 was clearly established at the time of the violation; if the plaintiff meets this burden, then the 3 defendant bears the burden of establishing

Liu v. New York City Police Department

216 A.D.2d 67 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 13, 1995

However, we find that the individual defendants should be granted qualified immunity from plaintiffs civil rights claims. … A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Halterman

District Court, W.D. Missouri · Feb 18, 2026

immunity analysis, while the latter, “arguable probable cause,” goes to the “clearly established prong” of the qualified immunity analysis. … to qualified immunity.”

ANTONIO LACY v. JOHN COUGHLIN & another.

100 Mass. App. Ct. 321 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 6, 2021

"Thus, if a court decides to grant qualified immunity because there is no violation of clearly established law, it may never answer whether there was a constitutional violation." … While I agree with Justice Massing that the right was clearly established here, the current case is yet another example of the collateral damage done by a qualified immunity doctrine which aggressively terminates cases at

Fowler v. Block

2 F. Supp. 2d 1268 · District Court, C.D. California · May 15, 1998

(2) Was such right clearly established at the time of the alleged offense? (3) If there is a clearly established right, is the issue of qualified immunity [ ] properly addressed in a motion for summary judgment? … Under the two-part test, there'is qualified immunity if: (1) the law governing the official’s conduct was “clearly established;” and (2) under that “clearly established” law, a reasonable officer could have believed that

Jones v. Kirkland

696 So. 2d 1249 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 25, 1997

of the facts alleged, defendant's actions violate clearly established law — a `purely legal question.'" … Clearly, under the most favorable version of the facts alleged, appellees' actions objectively violated clearly established law. Accordingly, dismissal of appellant's complaint cannot be supported by qualified immunity.

Mikko v. City of Atlanta, Georgia

857 F.3d 1136 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 26, 2017

Clearly Established Law To deprive the prosecutors of qualified immunity Mikko must show that their alleged actions violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of their conduct … In order for the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the unlawfulness of the defendant’s actions must be apparent in light of pre-existing law. Hope v.

Leveto v. Lapina

258 F.3d 156 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 17, 2001

The principles governing claims of qualified immunity are well-established. … If a reasonable official would have known that the conduct was unlawful, qualified immunity is generally not available.2 See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19 ("If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense or dinarily

Taylor

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jun 8, 2026

that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … What remains, then, is the second prong: whether the relevant rights were clearly established.

Kelly v. BOROUGH OF CARLISLE

815 F. Supp. 2d 810 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 7, 2011

was contrary to clearly established law. … Accordingly, the Second Circuit held that even where a defendant violates a clearly established right, he may still be entitled to qualified immunity in limited circumstances. Id.; see also Friedman v.

Douglas v. Galloway

568 F. Supp. 966 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jul 25, 1983

The Governor bases his immunity claim on two different doctrines: the qualified immunity accorded state executive officials in § 1983 cases, as enunciated in Harlow v. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.