Case law

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.

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.

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.

Lowther v. Children Youth and Families Department

District Court, D. New Mexico · Feb 23, 2023

violate a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right. … In its discretion, the Court addresses the second prong, or “clearly established prong,” of the qualified immunity analysis first.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Robert Hall v. Medical College of Ohio at Toledo

742 F.2d 299 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 28, 1984

II Qualified Immunity “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Thus, we cannot conclude that any other “clearly established” constitutional rights were violated in Hall’s expulsion from MCO.

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.

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center of Dallas v. Margulis

43 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 288 · Texas Supreme Court · Jan 6, 2000

The motion for summary judgment argued that as a matter of law the plaintiff failed to plead specific facts that would indicate a violation of clearly established law. … The motion then argued extensively that as a matter of law Fain and Winchester were entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

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.

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.

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.

Murphy v. City of Farmington

District Court, D. New Mexico · May 12, 2021

to qualified immunity. … The officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Green v. Thomas

129 F.4th 877 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 3, 2025

In finding clearly established law, the district court overlooked Espinal v. … particular case at hand” and granting qualified immunity because “the unlawfulness of the officers’ conduct in this case was not clearly established”). 35 See Bailey v.

State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services v. Doherty

167 P.3d 64 · Alaska Supreme Court · Sep 14, 2007

11 Second, "if so, was that right clearly established?" … . 18 Unlike the test for qualified immunity, the test for a facially valid $ 1983 claim does not require the court to consider whether the constitutional right in question was clearly established or whether a reasonable officer

Eboni Baldwin v. Harris County Sheriff Dept

964 F.3d 320 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 1, 2020

The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis asks whether the detainee’s right to treatment for serious medical needs was “clearly established” such that every “reasonable official would understand that what [she] … a triable material issue concerning a violation of a constitutional right or law clearly establishing that Dorsey’s alleged conduct was objectively unreasonable, we conclude that Dorsey is entitled to qualified immunity.