Case law

Bellamy v. Wells

626 F. Supp. 2d 595 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · May 15, 2009

Defendants maintain that they did not violate Bellamy’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, but even if they did they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not contravene any clearly established constitutional … immunity when there is a violation of clearly established federal law.

Ron Nord v. Walsh County

757 F.3d 734 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 26, 2014

If, upon application of the test, Nord’s rights were not clearly established, Wild is, of course, entitled to a qualified immunity defense against Nord’s claims. … immunity because Wild’s actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. *745 III.

Amy's Enterprises v. Sorrell

174 Vt. 623 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Dec 18, 2002

“[I]f the official’s conduct does not violate clearly-established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, the official is protected by qualified immunity from tort liability.” Id. … In the absence of any clearly established rules governing this situation, it cannot be said that no reasonable officers would not have acted in the same manner. ¶ 10.

McIntire v. State

419 N.W.2d 799 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Feb 23, 1988

In Harlow the Supreme Court further explained the applicable test: If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing … Whether the law was clearly established is a threshold question; if the trial court finds the law was not clearly established when the conduct occurred, “the inquiry ceases” and “the official is entitled to summary judgment

Newhard v. Borders

649 F. Supp. 2d 440 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Sep 2, 2009

who allegedly searched through Newhard’s phone after the arrest is entitled to qualified immunity because Newhard’s constitutional right to be free from such a search under the Fourth Amendment was not “clearly established … The Unnamed Officer who allegedly searched through the cell phone did not violate any “clearly established” constitutional right of New-hard’s under the Fourth Amendment and is thus entitled to qualified immunity.

Robin Mayfield v. Butler Snow, L.L.P.

976 F.3d 482 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 22, 2020

But in the context of qualified immunity, it is the plaintiff’s burden to establish that an allegedly violated right was clearly established. See, e.g., Wigginton v. Jones, 964 F.3d 329, 338 (5th Cir. 2020). … True, the Supreme Court has blessed our “sound discretion” to pivot solely on prong two of the qualified-immunity analysis. 1 And “clearly established law” is often outcome-determinative.

Glover v. Gartman

899 F. Supp. 2d 1115 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 27, 2012

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualifted Immunity Analysis. … The Supreme Court has clarified that the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity test is a very high burden for the plaintiff: “A Government official’s conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time

Duca v. Martins

941 F. Supp. 1281 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 20, 1996

Since defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on their federal .claims, and Duca has not identified any distinct right clearly established by state law, defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity on his Massachusetts … As demonstrated in the present section of this opinion, the typical non-Fourth Amendment qualified immunity analysis focuses on whether the particular right implicated is "clearly established.”

Florine Ching v. Ofc. Neal Walsh

73 F.4th 617 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 13, 2023

In a § 1983 action, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless: (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established. Manning v. … Because, after Jordan posed a threat to Walsh, it was not clearly established that Walsh’s continuous shooting, which lasted less than two seconds, violated a constitutional right, Walsh is entitled to qualified immunity.

Rouse v. Plantier

997 F. Supp. 575 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 9, 1998

The level of generality at which the right asserted must be “clearly established” is the key conceptual issue in many qualified immunity cases, and has been clearly articulated by Plaintiffs, see Plaintiffs’ Letter-Brief … right to adequate medical care was “clearly established.”

Hawkins v. State

117 N.C. App. 615 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 7, 1995

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the right violated was clearly established. Clark v. Link, 855 F.2d 156, 160 (4th Cir. 1988). … Accordingly, defendants did not violate any clearly established due process rights in terminating plaintiff and defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiff’s Fourteenth-Amendment due process claim. C.

Marcus Blazek v. Juan Santiago

761 F.3d 920 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 5, 2014

Qualified immunity shields a public official from liability for civil damages when his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evi *923 dence, viewed in the light most favorable to Blazek, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established

Harold E. Sivard, Jr. v. Pulaski County, Pulaski County Sheriff's Department, Charlotte Ward-Tillett, Individually and in Her Official Capacity

17 F.3d 185 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 16, 1994

Qualified Immunity of Sheriff Ward-Tillett An analysis of qualified immunity is appropriate only after resolution of the purely legal question of whether Sivard has alleged a violation of a constitutional right. … Frantz, 754 F.2d 719 (7th Cir.1985), as clearly establishing that his detention was unconstitutional.

Showalter v. North Carolina Department of Crime Control & Public Safety

183 N.C. App. 132 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 1, 2007

Defendants argue the trial court erred in concluding that Trooper Emmons was not entitled to qualified immunity because the right which plaintiff alleges to have been violated was not clearly established at the time and because … The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

G.M. ex rel. B.M. v. Casalduc

982 F. Supp. 2d 1235 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 4, 2013

When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established … with police assistance is not clearly established).

July v. Penzone

District Court, D. Arizona · Apr 5, 2021

complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 7 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 8 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th 23 Cir. 2009) (finding defendants entitled to qualified immunity because “[violations of] state 24 departmental regulations do not establish a federal constitutional violation”). 25

Brown v. The Gap Inc.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2024

that right was clearly established.” … [on] the clearly-established prong of the standard.”).

Burruss v. Riley

192 F. Supp. 3d 655 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jun 14, 2016

State officers are entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability for performing discretionary functions only insofar as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … To defeat qualified immunity in the mental health seizure context, a plaintiff must show that the “right allegedly violated was ‘clearly established’ in more than just a general sense.” Id.

Cunningham v. Kramer

178 F. Supp. 3d 999 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 15, 2016

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … O’Neill held that,'under circumstances substantially identical to those asserted here, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that law was not “clearly established” that inmates have a constitution right

Bearman v. California Medical Board

176 Cal. App. 4th 1588 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 26, 2009

In determining whether supervisor has qualified immunity, we “undertake a two-step analysis: ‘(1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? … To avoid the qualified immunity defense, appellant must show that supervisor’s conduct “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. [Citations.]”