Case law

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

Boggs v. Pearson

2021 S.D. 44 · South Dakota Supreme Court · Jul 28, 2021

“Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability and the burdens of litigation in a § 1983 action for damages unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right … immunity because it was not clearly established that their actions were unlawful.”

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”).

William Felkner v. Rhode Island College

Supreme Court of Rhode Island · Apr 20, 2023

Further, Felkner argues that qualified immunity does not apply to his request for equitable relief and that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because Felkner’s constitutional rights were established by … does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

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.

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.

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

Littles v. Commissioner of Correction

444 Mass. 871 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Aug 12, 2005

The doctrine of qualified immunity generally shields public officials from liability for civil damages for the performance of discretionary functions, “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … if so, the inquiry shifts to whether the right was so clearly established *879 that it would be plain to a reasonable official that his conduct was unlawful.

Carrero v. Farrelly

310 F. Supp. 3d 581 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 19, 2018

In other words, he is entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right at issue was not clearly established. … In determining whether a constitutional right is clearly established or not for purposes of qualified immunity courts must consider whether "any reasonable official in the defendant's shoes would have understood that he was

The West Virginia State Police, Department of Military Affairs v. J.H., a Minor, by and through His Parent and Next Friend, L.D.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 26, 2021

it violated a clearly established law or right in performing its discretionary functions. … Next, we must move forward in the qualified immunity analysis and determine whether J.H. has alleged that the acts of the Trooper Defendants were in violation of clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or

GOFAN JUNIOR v. PEREKSTA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 2021

In the familiar qualified immunity analysis, the court asks “(1) whether the officer violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established, such that ‘it would [have … This though does not end this Court’s qualified immunity analysis.

Archuleta v. LaCuesta

128 N.M. 13 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 1999

Such a person is entitled to qualified immunity from suit, however, if his or her action was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. See Yount v. … reasonably believed that the action was lawful in light of clearly established constitutional principles, see Anderson v.

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.”

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.

Jenkins v. Hale

6 So. 3d 452 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Oct 10, 2008

Therefore, whether Sheriff Hale is entitled to qualified immunity from Jenkins’s § 1983 claim turns on whether the “complaint ... allege[s] the violation of [that] clearly established constitutional right.” … On a motion to dismiss a § 1983 claim because of qualified immunity, this Court looks to the complaint to determine only whether the “ ‘ “complaint ... allege[s] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right

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

Jason Cunningham v. Shelby Cnty., Tenn.

994 F.3d 761 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 19, 2021

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff alleges facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established … The district court pointed to precedent from this court that it believed had clearly established before March of 2017 that, for Paschal and Wiggins to be entitled to qualified immunity under the circumstances of this case