Case law

Leahy v. Conant

436 P.3d 1039 · Alaska Supreme Court · Mar 8, 2019

We conclude that the superintendents were entitled to qualified immunity because the prisoner’s right to a religious exception from the mail policy was not “clearly established” under existing law. … Courts in some cases have concluded that prisoner’s religious rights are “clearly established” such that prison officials accused of violating them are not entitled to qualified immunity. In Hayes v.

Auriemma v. Rice

910 F.2d 1449 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 20, 1990

established and thereby creating a qualified immunity defense. … But in any event it cannot be said that the law was clearly established in 1983. Rice is entitled to qualified immunity on count IV, thus requiring reversal on that count. V.

Bexar County v. Giroux-Daniel

956 S.W.2d 692 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Oct 29, 1997

Government officials have a qualified immunity from § 1983 suits if they can establish that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … She argues that when she was fired in 1995, it was clearly established that firing a government employee for speaking out on matters of public concern constitutes a violation of the employee’s First Amendment rights.

Paul Cleveland v. Sid Gautreaux, III

938 F.3d 672 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 13, 2019

The dispositive question in this step of the qualified-immunity analysis is “whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.” Ibid. (quoting al- Kidd, 563 U.S. at 742). … Ct. 2042, 2045 (2015) (per curiam) (summarily reversing the Third Circuit for relying on circuit precedent to deny qualified immunity, but “[a]ssuming for the sake of argument that a right can be ‘clearly established’ by

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.

Ali v. Lambert

384 F. Supp. 3d 1321 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Apr 25, 2019

Thus, "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts that show-when taken as true-the defendant plausibly violated his constitutional rights, which were clearly established … the relevant law is clearly established."

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.

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.

West Virginia Division of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. Damein Robbins

West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 9, 2023

Those errors relate to one portion of the qualified immunity test (violation of a clearly established right), so we briefly survey pertinent immunities law before addressing the Officers’ specific arguments. … well-established qualified immunity framework.”

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.”

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

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.

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.

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.

Lamas v. Hale County

District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 15, 2021

Where a defendant has asserted a qualified-immunity defense, the Court may, under certain circumstances, permit limited discovery that is narrowly tailored to uncover facts that the Court needs to rule on the qualified-immunity … 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

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.

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.

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.