Case law

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Scott Allin v. City of Springfield

845 F.3d 858 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 11, 2017

Qualified Immunity Framework The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials from civil liability if their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Betances v. Fischer

140 F. Supp. 3d 294 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 14, 2015

APPLICABLE LAW “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct … Town of Wolcott, 599 F.3d 129, 134 (2d Cir.2010) ("Even where the law is clearly established and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is clearly defined, the qualified immunity defense also protects an official

PHILLIPS v. NEW JERSEY TRANSIT

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 14, 2022

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Pa. 2001) (“[T]he right to be free from the fabrication of evidence, falsifying documents, and malicious prosecution is clearly established.”).

Brodie v. Summit County Children Services Board

51 Ohio St. 3d 112 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 23, 1990

When considering a motion for summary judgment for the defense of qualified immunity, the judge may determine not only the currently applicable law, but whether the law was clearly established at the time the alleged act … “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. * * *” Id. at 818-819 . See, also, Anderson 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

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.

Washington v. Lambert

98 F.3d 1181 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 28, 1996

Because Lambert clearly violated Washington and Hicks’ Fourth Amendment rights, we affirm both the denial of qualified immunity and the grant of judgment as a matter of law. … The first question is whether the right at issue is clearly established and stated with particularity. Alexander, 64 F.3d at 1319.

Webb v. Johnson

District Court, D. Nebraska · Aug 4, 2022

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability in a 42 U.S.C. §1983 action when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense for which the defendant carries the burden of proof. The plaintiff, however, must demonstrate that the law is clearly established.” Sparr v.

Randy McDaniel v. Markeith Neal

44 F.4th 1085 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 15, 2022

Even if his use of force was excessive, Neal is entitled to qualified immunity unless the excessiveness of the force was clearly established on the date of the incident, August 13, 2017. … The district court denied the officer’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, and the en banc court reversed, holding that the officer did not violate a clearly established right on May 29, 2014.

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.

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.

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.

Mangino v. Incorporated Village of Patchogue

814 F. Supp. 2d 242 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 2011

Having carefully considered the motion for reconsideration, the Court concludes that Nudo is entitled to qualified immunity on the abuse of process claim because, although there was a clearly established right to be free … Therefore, qualified immunity at this juncture is clearly unwarranted.

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."