Case law

Vaughan v. Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services

920 So. 2d 650 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 21, 2005

The essential qualified immunity issue in this appeal is whether, at the time of the incident, the law clearly established that a warrant was required for the search of Vaughan’s property and whether, by entering his yard … inspector to render the law, establishing that a warrant was needed, not yet clearly established.

Lewis Stewart v. Romeo Aranas

32 F.4th 1192 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 4, 2022

The panel determined that only examination of the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis was necessary—whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation—because doing so would not hamper the … ” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

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.

Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Romer

20 Brief Times Rptr. 1044 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 1996

clearly established statutory or *90 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … What is “clearly established law” is a question of law, and a court engaging in review of a qualified immunity determination should therefore use “its full knowledge of its own [and other relevant] precedents.”

Lintz v. Skipski

815 F. Supp. 1066 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Feb 23, 1993

They argue that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs’ rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violations and also ask for reconsideration of their conspiracy claim. … Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages liability, provided their conduct “does not vio-' late clearly established statutory or

State Ex Rel Juvenile Department v. Tucker

76 Or. App. 673 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 4, 1985

The state does not argue persuasively that the experts did possess special knowledge of Indian life, but it contends that they were nevertheless qualified, because they had the necessary expertise to establish beyond a reasonable … However, when cultural bias is clearly not implicated, the necessary proof may be provided by expert witnesses who do not possess special knowledge of Indian life.

Hudson v. Zeettergren

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 8, 2020

However, qualified immunity shields the Defendant Officers from Hudson’s claim because they did not violate clearly established law. See White v. Pauly, --- U.S. ----, 137 S. … Ct. 548, 551 (2017) (“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Johnnie Williams v. Lance Corporal Kyle Strickland

917 F.3d 763 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 5, 2019

After discovery, Strickland and Heroux each moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for violations of constitutional rights that were not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Iko, 535 F.3d at 233.

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.

Aldarondo Lugo v. Municipality of Toa Baja

329 F. Supp. 2d 234 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 6, 2004

Then, Defendants paid lip service to the first and third prongs of the qualified immunity test, and addressed the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry at length: whether the right was clearly established. … The Court undertook an analysis of qualified immunity with the record before it. The law was clearly established, the second prong was met, but that was not dispositive of the defense.

Hitoshi Yoshikawa v. Troy Seguirant

41 F.4th 1109 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 25, 2022

Because there is a circuit split, he claims that there is no clearly established law, and he is entitled to qualified immunity. We are not persuaded by this argument. … Simply put, invoking McDonnell Douglas at this stage created unnecessary confusion over the clearly established law test for qualified immunity.

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.

Mitchell v. Township of Willingboro Municipality Government

913 F. Supp. 2d 62 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 28, 2012

The Third Circuit has clearly held that “qualified immunity will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Thomas v. … Defendant Perez does not argue that Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights in this case were not clearly established. Consequently, the Plaintiffs complaint satisfies the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Sweeney v. Bond

669 F.2d 542 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 13, 1982

The district court held that the Governor’s qualified immunity protected him from deposition absent a showing by plaintiffs of specific need.

Ramirez v. Escajeda

44 F.4th 287 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 10, 2022

Qualified immunity shields an officer from liability if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. … Escajeda next argues that, fact disputes aside, he is still entitled to qualified immunity because his use of force did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. We agree.

Dangler v. New York City Off Track Betting Corp.

193 F.3d 130 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 23, 1999

The court noted that at the time of Dangler’s termination, “it was not clearly established in this Circuit that the policymaker exception did not immunize employers from liability in Pickering type situations,” 1998 WL 599711 … did not- violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Mawson v. Pittston Police Department

145 F. Supp. 3d 363 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 2015

The defendant objects to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the law was clearly established. (Doc. 93, p. 13). … Again, for the purposes of qualified immunity, the court must determine whether the facts — taken in the light most favorable to the non-moving party — establish a violation of clearly established law and that a reasonable

Hensley Ex Rel. North Carolina v. Price

876 F.3d 573 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 17, 2017

clearly established law. … It contains no argument on the "clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test. It contains no citation to cases actually applying the "clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test.

Okin v. Village of Cornwall-On-Hudson Police Department

577 F.3d 415 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 18, 2009

established for purposes of qualified immunity. … That Dwares does not discuss the "shocks the conscience” standard, however, does not establish qualified immunity.

Edward Monk v. Alvernon Rogers

2021 Ark. App. 148 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 7, 2021

from damages under section 1983 7 unless they transgress “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Accordingly, Rogers is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the facts alleged, construed in a light most favorable to Monk, establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly