Case law

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).

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.

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.

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

Brockington v. City of Philadelphia

354 F. Supp. 2d 563 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 2005

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “law enforcement officers acting within their professional capacity are generally immune from trial ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The second step of the qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Tom Heaney v. Christopher Roberts

846 F.3d 795 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 23, 2017

Black is entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim because his actions as sergeant-at-arms were not objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. We affirm on that claim. D. … But an officer is only denied qualified immunity if his or her actions are objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. See, e.g., Blackwell v.

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

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.

Ohio Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. Moritz

39 Ohio App. 3d 132 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 1987

Appellants assert the following as their sole assignment of error: “The trial court erred in denying defendants-appellants’ good faith immunity defense where defendants-appellants violated no clearly established constitutional … Harlow holds that until the threshold question of immunity is resolved, whether the law or right which the official is alleged to have violated was clearly established at the time of the appeal violation and whether a reasonable

Humble

District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 14, 2026

in light of clearly established law. … at 502 (holding that defendants failed to establish qualified immunity).

Sheppard v. Beerman

911 F. Supp. 606 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 20, 1995

In the Second Circuit, law is normally “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes when there is a United States Supreme Court or circuit court ruling on point. See Richardson v. … ’s dismissal established the violation of a “clearly established” right.

Cope v. Cogdill

3 F.4th 198 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 2, 2021

There are two aspects to qualified immunity: whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right and whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. … Even if their actions were constitutionally unlawful, they are entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right at issue was not “clearly established.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. 1.

West Virginia Department of Human Resources v. A.R.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 5, 2024

When dealing with broad rights, the plaintiff bears the burden of particularizing such a right before those rights are subject to the qualified immunity test of being clearly established. … Were it otherwise, allegations like A.R’s would “grossly oversimplif[y], and frankly nullif[y],” that step of the qualified immunity analysis pertaining to the violation of clearly established statutory or constitutional

Mierzwa v. City of Garfield

170 F. App'x 212 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 19, 2005

Finally, the Court found that because the State is immune from liability under § 1983, the Mierzwas’ due process claim lacks merit. … In addition, the individual Garfield defendants (police and prosecutor) enjoy qualified immunity as their conduct in investigating the incident between Edward and Thomas did not violate clearly established constitutional

Lane v. First National Bank of Boston

687 F. Supp. 11 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 19, 1988

The meaning of “clearly established law” in the context of qualified immunity has been analyzed by the First Circuit in several cases, and in a recent decision the Court stated that, “in assessing a claim of qualified immunity … that the district attorney was entitled to qualified immunity.

Paylan v. Dirks

228 So. 3d 679 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 11, 2017

Stat. (2010), and the face of her complaint does not otherwise conclusively establish that the ASAs are entitled either to sovereign immunity or to qualified immunity. See Peak v. … of the qualified immunity defense; that is, whether, under the most favorable version of facts alleged, the defendant's action violated clearly established law."); Town of Southwest Ranches v.

Mohamed Sabra v. Maricopa County Community Coll

44 F.4th 867 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 10, 2022

of qualified immunity, as there was no case law clearly establishing that his conduct was unconstitutional at the time of the alleged offense. … Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of 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

Siddique v. City of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2025

Indeed, Inoa’s own description of why he is entitled to qualified immunity touches upon several areas in dispute: [I]t was not clearly established that Officer … That seems unlikely because the language “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights” in the context of failure to intervene borrows from the qualified immunity doctrine, see Riccitui, 124 F.3d at 129, and

Shirk v. Forsmark

272 P.3d 1118 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jan 5, 2012

Qualified immunity is immunity from suit, not a mere defense to liability. Id. … To overcome a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must plead a constitutional violation, and the constitutional right allegedly violated must have been "clearly established" at the time of the action in question.