Case law

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.

Tina Ray v. Michael Roane

948 F.3d 222 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 22, 2020

violation occurred and (2) whether the right violated was clearly established. … Still, even without “directly on-point, binding authority,” qualified immunity is inappropriate if “the 11 right was clearly established based on general constitutional principles

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

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

Robinson v. Langdon

333 Ark. 662 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 25, 1998

Fitzgerald, the [government official] will be entitled to immunity so long as his actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Shuffield had “fair warning” that he was violating a clearly established right in determining that the allegation of abuse was “founded.”

Tillard v. Strawser

District Court, D. Arizona · Jan 25, 2022

(Id. at 9 n.7.) 15 Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages unless 16 their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … that 20 right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Pagan-Gonzalez v. Moreno

919 F.3d 582 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 22, 2019

"[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was 'clearly established at the time.' " Dist. of … Qualified Immunity Having concluded that the search as alleged violated the Constitution, we turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry: whether the unlawfulness of the agents' conduct was clearly established

Allen v. Guerrero

276 Wis. 2d 679 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Sep 16, 2004

given right was clearly established." … clearly established.

Gormley v. Wood-El

422 N.J. Super. 426 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 18, 2011

In that regard, we conclude, because the right asserted was not clearly established at the time plaintiff was attacked, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. I. … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless his or her conduct violated “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Ibid.

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.

Ex parte Harvey Ruffin, Shelton Patterson, Sandra Giles and Kenneth Jones.

160 So. 3d 750 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Aug 29, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity generally shields government officials who are performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates "clearly established … the petitioners violated clearly established constitutional law.

Erika Mabes v. Shannon Thompson

136 F.4th 697 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 28, 2025

Both sets of defendants invoked qual- ified immunity, contending that their actions did not violate the Mabeses’ clearly established rights. … Thompson’s en- titlement to qualified immunity naturally follows from the Mabeses’ failure to carry their “burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right.” Forman v.

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."

Salazar v. Molina

37 F.4th 278 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 16, 2022

Qualified immunity allows law enforcement officers to avoid personal liability and the burdens of defending suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right. … “Because nonprecedential opinions do not establish any binding law for the circuit, they cannot be the source of clearly established law for qualified immunity analysis.” Marks v.

Morris v. Noe

672 F.3d 1185 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 27, 2012

The second step in our qualified immunity inquiry is whether Morris’s right to be free from an unlawful arrest was clearly established. … Yet even if Noe violated a constitutional right, he is still entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established at the time.

Tucker v. City of Shreveport

998 F.3d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 18, 2021

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from suit and liability for damages under § 1983 unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right. Mace v. … This is true “even when . . . a court decides only the clearly-established prong of the [qualified immunity] standard.” Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 657 (2014).

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.”

Russell v. Coyle

266 N.J. Super. 651 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 4, 1993

Extant caselaw establishes that qualified immunity should shield Trooper Coyle from suit for damages if "a reasonable officer could have believed [Trooper Coyle's] warrantless search to be lawful, in light of clearly established … As noted, with respect to qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that the defendant violated some clearly established right. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 , 73 L.Ed. 2d at 410 .

Jacobi v. Holbert

553 S.W.3d 246 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 2018

For all these reasons, the DPA is clearly a state agency to which governmental immunity is extended. … The DPA is clearly not functioning as a profit-driven entity. 3.

Vu, Kojoua v. Lozano, Kevin

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Nov 27, 2023

A government defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows not only that the defendant violated his rights, but also that his rights were “clearly established” at the relevant time. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability provided that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which