Case law

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

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.

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.

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.

Roger Trent v. Steven Wade

776 F.3d 368 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 29, 2015

The doctrine of qualified immunity “insulate[s]” state officials from liability to the extent that the officials’ actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” … As discussed, the qualified immunity analysis involves two inquiries: (1) whether the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) whether that the right was clearly established. Morgan v.

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.

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

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.

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).