Case law

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.

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.

Eleanor Keller v. Attala County

952 F.3d 216 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 20, 2020

Without setting forth a clearly established right for which the analysis can continue, Plaintiffs have not defeated Deputy Fleming’s qualified immunity defense. … his actions violated clearly established law.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sanchez v. Sanchez

777 F. Supp. 906 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 8, 1991

If the plaintiff does establish such intent, there can be no qualified immunity. … As the reasoning in these cases demonstrates, where the right is clearly established, a defendant to a claim requiring proof of impermissible motive is not entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Eason v. Thaler

14 F.3d 8 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 10, 1994

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

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.

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.