Case law

Davis v. Town of Southern Pines

116 N.C. App. 663 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 1, 1994

“The test of qualified immunity for police officers sued under [section 1983] is whether [the officers’ conduct violated] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … In ruling on the defense of qualified immunity we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation; and (3)

Harmon v. Dall. Cnty.

294 F. Supp. 3d 548 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 20, 2018

In analyzing qualified immunity claims, the Supreme Court has "repeatedly told courts...to not define clearly established law at a high level of generality." Mullenix v. … In analyzing qualified immunity claims, the Supreme Court has "repeatedly told courts … to not define clearly established law at a high level of generality." Mullenix v.

(PC) Trehearne v. Huggett

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 19, 2025

1 parole revocation acts like a police officer applying for an arrest warrant and is therefore entitled 2 to qualified immunity); Thornton v. … arising from the duty to supervise parolees is 9 covered by qualified immunity[.]”). 10 Plaintiff’s allegations in both claims two and three that he has been arrested and returned

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

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

Mohamed ex rel. A.M. v. Irving Independent School District

252 F. Supp. 3d 602 · District Court, N.D. Texas · May 18, 2017

Principal Cummings asserts he is entitled to qualified immunity, as Plaintiff has failed to plead facts showing that he violated any of A.M.’s clearly established constitutional rights. … In analyzing qualified immunity claims, the Supreme Court has “repeatedly told courts ... to not define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” Mullenix v.

Connell v. Signoracci

153 F.3d 74 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 21, 1998

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss if the allegations of the complaint fail to “state a claim of violation of clearly established law.” Behrens v. … Qualified immunity shields officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Hassell v. Fischer

96 F. Supp. 3d 370 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 1, 2015

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “protects public officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability in a civil suit for damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity, therefore, turns on whether and when the rights that Hassell invokes were “clearly established.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 .

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.

Cheri Marie Hanson v. Daniel Best

915 F.3d 543 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 8, 2019

We have jurisdiction to the extent that we may resolve “abstract questions of law related to the qualified- immunity determination—typically, whether the allegedly infringed federal right was clearly established.” … Therefore, the right at issue is not clearly established, and the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on Hanson’s excessive force claim.

El Dia, Inc. v. Rossello

20 F. Supp. 2d 296 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 28, 1998

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense shielding public officials from civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate any clearly-established statutory or constitutional right of which a … To determine whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity protection from the claims in Count I, we must determine whether the right claimed is a clearly-established one.

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.

Suissa v. Fulton County, GA

74 F.3d 266 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 6, 1996

Because that component of qualified immunity is established, "the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant "violated clearly established constitutional law.' " Id. … Just as no decision clearly establishes that the First Amendment is violated by an unsuccessful attempt to influence protected speech in general, none clearly establishes that it is violated by an unsuccessful attempt

Bayer v. Monroe County Children and Youth Services

577 F.3d 186 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 14, 2009

And in light of Pearson , we need not reach this issue, as we find that, under the “clearly established” prong of the Saucier test, defendants should be afforded qualified immunity with respect to this claim. … See Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 822 (forgoing the first Saucier step and finding the defendants “are entitled to qualified immunity because [their conduct] did not violate clearly established law”).

Administrator Larry Crawford, individually and in his official capacity, Captain Carl Aldridge, individually and in his official capacity, C.O. Paul Diamond, individually and in his official capacity, C.O. Don Vance, individually and in his official capacity, C.O. David Rodes, individually and in his official capacity, C.O. Joshua Scarberry, individually and in his official capacity, and The West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority v. Michael A. McDonald

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 31, 2023

McDonald disagrees that Petitioners are entitled to qualified immunity. … established law for qualified immunity purposes because it does not prescribe any specific behavior by the supervisory defendants and does not clearly define any rights.

Diaz-Colon v. Toledo-Davila

980 F. Supp. 2d 214 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 24, 2013

In determining whether qualified immunity shields a state actor from liability, courts look at 1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right, and 2) whether the right at issue was clearly established … Taylor, 723 F.3d 91 (1st Cir.2013), and that the prohibition against “deliberately fabricating evidence and framing individuals for crimes they did not commit,” as alleged in this case, was clearly established as far back

Newman v. Kock

274 S.W.3d 697 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Aug 6, 2008

In response to Newman’s due process and due course claims, Appellees asserted the affirmative defenses of qualified immunity and official immunity and filed a traditional motion for summary judgment claiming that they established … that violated clearly established law.

Root v. Comstock

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 14, 2026

Qualified immunity “[Q]ualified 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 … Root’s out-of-circuit cases do not provide clearly established law. Most of them are district court and unpublished decisions that cannot qualify as clearly established law. See Surat v.

Dixon v. Baldwin

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 25, 2023

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Moody v. City of Newport News

193 F. Supp. 3d 530 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 16, 2016

Clearly Established Further, even if Hollandsworth used excessive force, she would still be entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate a clearly established' constitutional right. … Clearly Established Law Alternatively, even if Gibson did use excessive force, he would still be entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.