Case law

McDonald v. Doe

650 F. Supp. 858 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 31, 1986

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), an official who enjoys qualified immunity is immune from civil damages “insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … “If, on the other hand, the court concludes that the officials alleged conduct did violate clearly established law, it must deny summary judgment on the ground that the official is not entitled to qualified immunity, and

Alley v. Bettencourt

134 Ohio App. 3d 303 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 1999

The officers filed for summary judgment, arguing that the doctrine of qualified immunity barred Alley’s federal claims, because Alley could not prove that they violated any clearly established statutory or constitutional … Alley responded to the officers’ motion for summary judgment, arguing that qualified immunity did not bar his federal claims, because the officers violated his clearly established constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment

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.

Hank Heckman and Loren Garcia v. Betsy Jividen, Jeff Sandy, and Patrick Morrisey

Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia · Apr 15, 2024

Despite Hargus’ influence upon Phalen’s outcome, qualified immunity does not require the public official to have a strong argument; all that is required to receive immunity is that the right was not “clearly established … Hargus’ logic was plainly influential in deciding Phalen, but qualified immunity’s standard is “clearly established,” not probable, or 20 likely to be established.

United States v. Lopez

147 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 16, 1998

Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979), the Court established the requirements for attacking the composition of a jury: In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show … It clearly did not deprive him of a fair trial. Defense counsel was able to cope effectively with the shortened period of preparation.

Randall Kevin Jones v. Officer S. Fransen

857 F.3d 843 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 19, 2017

Nor does binding precedent allow for the conclusion that Defendant Officers’ employment of Draco in the circumstances of this case violated Jones’s clearly established rights, so the officers have qualified immunity. … In summary, we conclude that Defendant Officers Fransen, Towler, and Ross are entitled to qualified immunity because binding precedent does not clearly establish that their actions in allowing Draco to apprehend Jones violated

David Andrews v. Robert Scuilli

853 F.3d 690 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 10, 2017

If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity. … This leaves us with the question of whether the rights at issue were clearly established at the time.18 We need not dwell on this.

West Virginia Department of Education v. McGraw

239 W. Va. 192 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 17, 2017

, qualified immunity bars recovery for Ms. … The DOE argues that qualified immunity bars this claim for two reasons: (1) the facts alleged in the complaint do not outline a liberty interest violation (or any other clearly-established constitutional or statutory violation

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.

Lucas v. State

141 S.W.3d 121 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Feb 4, 2004

Qualified immunity is asserted as a defense, and shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The procedure for evaluating claims of qualified immunity is tripartite: First, we determine whether a constitutional violation has occurred; second, we determine whether the right that was violated was a clearly established

Ali Shamaeizadeh v. Joel Cunigan

338 F.3d 535 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 22, 2003

Furthermore, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to this aspect of Shamaeizadeh’s § 1983 claim because their unconstitutional conduct “involved a clearly established constitutional right of which … Even though the officers violated Shamaeizadeh’s clearly established constitutional rights, they are nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity if Shamaeizadeh has failed to offer sufficient evidence that the officers’ actions

Eason v. Thaler

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

City of Phoenix v. Yarnell

184 Ariz. 310 · Arizona Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1995

Without ever reaching the issue of the detectives’ immunity, the court concluded that the detectives did not violate Smith’s clearly established constitutional rights. … What the County missed is that the City escaped liability not because of the detectives' qualified immunity but because there was no clearly established constitutional right that was violated. .

Smiley

District Court, S.D. Georgia · Mar 12, 2026

But the arguable probable cause inquiry in a false arrest case is no different from the clearly established law inquiry in any other qualified immunity case … Clearly Established Law To prevail against the assertion of qualified immunity, Plaintiff must show—in addition to a constitutional violation— that “when the

Spruytte v. Owens

190 Mich. App. 127 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 1991

Regarding the immunity question, it is clear that Rule 791.6637(4) was a clearly established state regulation, violation of which is sufficient to cause officials to forfeit their qualified immunity. … Because the officials violated that rule and the rule was clearly established at the time of the violation, the officials are not entitled to immunity.

Sawyers v. Norton

962 F.3d 1270 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 23, 2020

(2) The three officers were not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds because “it is . . . clearly established by Tenth Circuit precedent that [Mr.] … Although they describe the law of qualified immunity, including the clearly established law requirement, see Aplt.

Roxanne Adams v. Debra Ferguson

884 F.3d 219 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 6, 2018

Qualified immunity “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Mullenix v. … “Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

James P. Crocker v. Deputy Sheriff Steven Eric Beatty

886 F.3d 1132 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 2, 2018

Rights may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes by one of three methods: (1) “case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional right,” (2) “a broad statement of principle within … We further determine that these rights were clearly established at the time of the seizure such that Beatty is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Quinn v. Webster County, Mississippi

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Mar 30, 2023

Clifton, 29 F.3d 1012 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding that law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity “unless it is shown that, at the time of the incident, [the officer] violated a clearly established constitutional … While his contention is clearly that it occurred prior to entering the cell, the allegation provides no further context as to when it happened.

Sean Rambert, Sr. v. City of Greenville

107 F.4th 388 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 12, 2024

But an officer is not entitled to “qualified immunity if he or she deprived an individual of a constitutional right and that right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” … But that is not how the clearly established prong of qualified immunity works. Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”