Case law

Ruffins v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

701 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2010

“clearly established federal law” for the purposes of qualified immunity. … At the time the Second Circuit had Earley before it for consideration, the relevant law may have been clearly established for the purposes of AEDPA and not clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity.

Johnson v. El Paso Cty Sheriff

51 F.3d 1041 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 20, 1995

-2- their original answer on March 23 raising the affirmative defenses of absolute and qualified immunity. … For a defendant pleading qualified immunity to be liable, the defendant official's conduct must have violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Phoenician Mediterranean Villa, LLC v. Swope (In Re J & S Properties, LLC)

872 F.3d 138 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 28, 2017

clearly established law. … “To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must plead facts ‘showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct

Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles

96 F. Supp. 3d 990 · District Court, C.D. California · May 29, 2014

immunity to officers who used Tasers in which courts held that Taser usage was not “clearly established.” … These theories arose from clearly established constitutional violations which, if proven, would disqualify a defendant from qualified immunity protections. Hope v.

Lucas v. The City of Reynoldsburg

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 2, 2025

because they violated no clearly established right. … Thus, an official sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time of the

Darnell Hines v. Ashrafe Youseff

914 F.3d 1218 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 1, 2019

So for the officials here to lose qualified immunity, it would have to have been clearly established that treating people of all races the same violated the Equal Protection Clause. … So we conclude that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. The rights that the inmates claim were not clearly established when the officials acted. Granting leave to amend would be futile.

Bryant v. Texas Department of Aging & Disability Services

781 F.3d 764 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 25, 2015

A defense of qualified immunity is analyzed in two parts. “First, a court must decide whether a plaintiff’s allegation, if true, establishes a violation of a clearly established right.” Id. (citation omitted). … She has thus failed to show that the reassignment violated a clearly established right and Littleton is entitled to qualified immunity on this interference claim. 8  Case

Krupien v. Ritcey

112 N.E.3d 302 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 26, 2018

"[T]he relevant inquiry on summary judgment as to the defense of qualified immunity is whether a reasonable official could have believed his actions were lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information possessed … established religious rights. 13 Therefore, the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity.

Pasco Ex Rel. Pasco v. Knoblauch

566 F.3d 572 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 28, 2009

The district court denied summary judgment based on its findings that Knoblauch had waived his qualified immunity defense by failing to raise it in a timely fashion, and that Knoblauch violated clearly established Fourth … facts amount to a violation of clearly established law.”

Estate of Seth Michael Zakora v. Troy Chrisman

44 F.4th 452 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2022

Two factors lead us away, however, from deciding this case under the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity for the first time on appeal. … No clearly established constitutional right. What ought to create a stop sign at step one of qualified immunity generates a grinding halt at step two.

Arnzen v. State

123 Idaho 899 · Idaho Supreme Court · May 13, 1993

Thus, in order to determine whether Richardson, in his individual capacity, was entitled to qualified immunity, we must ask: 1. Was there a clearly established law; 2. … This prong of the qualified immunity analysis is a compound question: (1) did Arnzen have a clearly established right; and (2) did Richardson’s conduct violate it?

Burke v. Glanz

292 F. Supp. 3d 1235 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 9, 2017

With respect to the second component of the qualified immunity analysis, to show clearly established law, a plaintiff must generally identify a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit opinion which existed at the time of the alleged … Glanz also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Haskell Greer v. City of Highland Park, Mich.

884 F.3d 310 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 2, 2018

Page 2 qualified immunity. … DISCUSSION Qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Ada Electric Cars, LLC v. Kemp

294 P.3d 448 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 18, 2012

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing: 1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right; and 2) that the right was "clearly established … advertising that its vehicles qualified. %8 Appellant has failed to demonstrate Appellees violated its clearly established right to freedom of speech in a manner that would enable Appellant to defeat Appel-lees' qualified

Schlicher v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners

363 Ill. App. 3d 869 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 6, 2006

The Supreme Court has explained the concept of a “clearly established” constitutional right in the context of a qualified immunity claim as follows: “ ‘[Cjlearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that … Because “it is well established that the qualified immunity doctrine does not apply to official capacity claims” (Ruffino v.

Jeremy Boudoin v. Terral Harsson

962 F.3d 1034 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 22, 2020

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a [§] 1983 action, unless the official’s conduct violates clearly established constitutional or statutory law of which a reasonable person would have known … In denying Harsson qualified immunity, the district court cited Nance v.

Parent v. Kan. City Pub. Sch.

296 F. Supp. 3d 1111 · District Court, D. Kansas · Oct 31, 2017

Since qualified immunity requires an answer to both questions and this Court cannot answer whether there is a constitutional violation, this Court need not decide at this time whether the right was clearly established. … not clearly established.

Tolliver v. Jordan

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 1, 2021

Accordingly, on the facts before it, the Court cannot conclude that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See, e.g., Hernandez v. Goord, 312 F. … Supp. 2d 537, 548-49 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (defendants’ alleged improperly-motivated prison transfers in retaliation for inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights violated clearly established law, making qualified immunity

Shane v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 16, 2023

If a right is not clearly established, the defendant is 8 entitled to qualified immunity. Lawrence v. U.S., 340 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2003). … Cty. of Santa Barbara, 868 F.3d 1110, 1117 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that qualified 4 immunity applies if no clearly established law exists on the issue); see also White, 580 U.S. 5 at 79 (noting that clearly established

Sok Kong v. City of Burnsville

960 F.3d 985 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 29, 2020

They are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the facts show a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the misconduct. See Pearson v. … Because a reasonable jury could decide the officers violated this clearly established right when they shot Kong, I would affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity.