Case law

Nation v. Colla

173 Ariz. 245 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Dec 29, 1992

Whether the absence of clearly established law in 1984 concerning when a child could or could not be taken into temporary custody entitles Michelle Colla to qualified immunity in taking temporary custody over James Nation … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an executive officer is immune from civil liability in a § 1983 action if the conduct complained of does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which

Mills v. Cvitkovich

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 30, 2024

Qualified immunity is a doctrine that shields state actors “‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … They do state off-hand that Mills has not pointed to any clearly established right which would overcome Officer Cvitkovitch’s claim to qualified immunity (id. at PageID 208), but the lion’s share of Defendants’ Motion rests

State v. Sims

871 S.W.2d 259 · Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Feb 1, 1994

to have been violated were clearly established at the time of the official’s actions. … In their brief, relators extensively discuss the issue of whether the actions of Mauro and Giberson violated a clearly established right.

Burley v. Miller

241 F. Supp. 3d 828 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 13, 2017

to qualified immunity. … Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, “the plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established.” McDonald v.

Sabir v. Williams

52 F.4th 51 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 17, 2022

Qualified Immunity A. … the right is clearly established.

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.

Reynaldo Ramirez v. Jim Wells County, Texas

716 F.3d 369 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 15, 2013

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Because there was no false arrest, no constitutional violation occurred, and, accordingly, we have no occasion to reach the part of the qualified immunity analysis that asks whether the law was clearly established.

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

Dora v. Rowe

District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 24, 2022

Motions on Qualified Immunity Second, the remaining defendants who have already appeared? … See Backe, 691 F.3d at 648 (explaining that “this court has established a careful procedure under which a district court may defer its qualified immunity ruling if further factual development is necessary to ascertain

Longval v. Commissioner of Correction

448 Mass. 412 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Feb 23, 2007

immunity, the right *419 must be clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … immunity was available to the defendants because the law, before our decision in Haverty , was not “clearly established.”

Henderson v. Glanz

813 F.3d 938 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 28, 2015

The defendants do not challenge the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity standard, other than in a single sentence stating that “Plaintiff failed to show that the Sheriff violated a clearly … Henderson has not carried her burden of establishing he violated a constitutional right that was clearly established, we conclude the district court erred in holding he is not entitled to qualified immunity.

John Melnik v. James Dzurenda

14 F.4th 981 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 27, 2021

Dissenting, Judge Bennett would hold that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law. … Clearly Established Right Defendants in this case focus their challenge to the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on the second prong of the analysis, the “clearly established” element, and on only part of

E. D. v. Daniel Sharkey

928 F.3d 299 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 1, 2019

Officials demonstrate they are entitled to qualified immunity only if they can show that a reasonable person in their position at the relevant time could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct … Alleged constitutional right clearly established. We further agree that a detainee's right to be protected by state officials aware of ongoing sexual assault was clearly established at the time of Sharkey's conduct.

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

State of New Jersey, by the Commissioner of Transportation v. Cherry Hill Mitsubishi, Inc.

439 N.J. Super. 462 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 26, 2015

Turning to the State's assertion of qualified immunity as grounds for dismissal, it is well-established that the doctrine balances the need to hold public officials accountable for improperly … We ask (1) "whether a constitutional right would have been violated on the facts alleged" and (2) "whether the right was clearly established." Saucier, supra, 533 U.S. at 200, 121 S.

Martin v. City of Eastlake

686 F. Supp. 620 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 18, 1988

Put simply, if a defendant did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. … If a defendant did violate a clearly established constitutional right, he was not entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

Jose Peroza-Benitez v. Darren Smith

994 F.3d 157 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 8, 2021

Haser and Officer White were entitled to qualified immunity because Peroza-Benitez’s constitutional rights at issue were not “clearly established” at the time of the incident. … At summary judgment, the burden is on the officer to establish an entitlement to qualified immunity. Halsey, 750 F.3d at 288.

Walker v. Watson

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 6, 2022

Qualified Immunity The Defendants alternatively argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiff’s claims. … The Court, having found that the facts do not make out a constitutional violation finds that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to each of Plaintiff’s constitutional claims.

Velasquez v. Senko

643 F. Supp. 1172 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 31, 1986

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. … The Court explained: Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.