Case law

Harris v. Parrish

552 S.W.3d 475 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 6, 2018

right is clearly established, and raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official should have known that the conduct violated such established rights. … We hold that Parrish's constitutional rights were clearly established prior to Harris's actions in question. In Shannon v.

Gloria Bustillos v. El Paso County Hospital Dist

891 F.3d 214 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 23, 2018

The district court held those allegations cannot overcome the Doctors’ and Nurses’ qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly-established. We agree and affirm on that ground. … Granting of qualified immunity on the “clearly-established” prong is not the same as holding that no constitutional violation occurred. That would conflate the two prongs of qualified immunity.

Harris v. City of New York

222 F. Supp. 3d 341 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 2, 2016

Qualified immunity exists to protect government employees from civil liability where performance of their discretionary functions “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Probable cause is no defense to such a claim, Zahrey, 221 F.3d at 355 , and qualified immunity is unavailable where “the action violates an accused’s clearly established constitutional rights, and no reasonably competent

Karen Heeter v. Kenneth Bowers

99 F.4th 900 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 29, 2024

Clearly Established Law on Excessive Force The next step of the qualified immunity analysis asks us to determine whether the law was clearly established at the time of the violation. … This standard overlaps with our qualified immunity analysis because officers act in a “wanton or reckless” manner when they violate an individual’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Hill v. D.J. Taylor

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 3, 2023

Defendants also assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity. A. … Qualified immunity is available to protect the Officers from liability unless it can be shown by Plaintiff that the Officers violated a clearly established right, based on closely analogous cases illustrating that the Officers

Wetherbe v. Texas Tech University

138 F.4th 296 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 20, 2025

is qualified immunity. … However, “the ‘clearly established’ qualified immunity standard . . . . does not require that causation be clearly established,” 40 so we need not address element four.

Campbell v. Anderson

156 N.C. App. 371 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 4, 2003

of qualified immunity requires (1) identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determining whether at the time of the alleged violation the right was clearly established; and (3) if so, then determining … Plaintiff sufficiently identified specific rights clearly established at the time of the violation and has met the first two prongs. The third prong of the test may require a factual analysis. See Roberts v.

Petcu v. State

86 P.3d 1234 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 30, 2004

Finally, he argued that Smith was not entitled to qualified immunity because she violated Petcu's clearly established right to family unity. … Once a defendant asserts a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that a clearly established constitutional right exists. Robinson, 119 Wash.2d at 65-66 , 830 P.2d 318 .

Naumovski v. Norris

934 F.3d 200 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 12, 2019

Qualified Immunity A government official is entitled to immunity from suit whenever (1) his conduct “did not violate clearly established law,” or (2) “it was objectively reasonable for [the official] to believe that … Because Naumovski has failed to produce evidence that could establish that Defendants themselves clearly violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights, Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity

Clark v. Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government

District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Jan 4, 2024

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from civil liability for damages when their conduct does not violate the plaintiff’s ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 8 Plaintiffs also move to exclude … Mills, 869 F.3d at 486 (noting the right to be clearly established as of 1992); Moldowan, 578 F.3d at 382 (recognizing that the right was clearly established in 1990); cf.

Dennis v. City of Phila.

379 F. Supp. 3d 420 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 2019

Borough of Nesquehoning , 905 F.3d 711 , 719 (3d Cir. 2018) (explaining that the qualified immunity inquiry was whether the right at issue in that case was clearly established at the time the alleged conduct occurred). … They argue that because it was not clearly established in 1992 that police officers had any Brady obligations, the Defendant detectives are entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

Randall Ehlers v. Scott Dirkes

846 F.3d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 25, 2017

statutory right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” … A reasonable officer would not have understood the action in question to constitute excessive force.4 Thus, the law was not clearly established, and Rybak is entitled to qualified immunity. 4 Ehlers relies

Villarreal v. City of Laredo

134 F.4th 273 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 8, 2025

Ct. 2088, 2093 (2012) (qualified immunity applies unless officials “violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct”). … The qualified immunity inquiry asks whether an officer “violate[d] clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818.

Todd D'Braunstein v. Chp

131 F.4th 764 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 12, 2025

But I depart from the majority in its “clearly established’ prong analysis of qualified immunity. … But for qualified immunity, the Supreme Court “has repeatedly told courts . . . not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” Kisela 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.

Noble v. City of Camden

112 F. Supp. 3d 208 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 29, 2015

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity “if a reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed” to arrest Plaintiff “in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] '’ officers … of qualified immunity. .

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

Cline v. State, Division of Child & Family Services

539 Utah Adv. Rep. 33 · Court of Appeals of Utah · Nov 17, 2005

The Spiel-man court held that the section 1983 claims against Hildebrand were barred by qualified immunity because plaintiffs could not show a violation of any clearly established constitutional or statutory right. … Thus, the section 1983 claims against Forsyth are barred by qualified immunity because Cline cannot show a violation of any clearly established constitutional or statutory right. B.

Rogerson v. Fitzpatrick

170 N.C. App. 387 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 17, 2005

Forsyth, for support of the proposition that when a court looks at qualified immunity, "[a]ll it need determine is a question of law." … Likewise, this Court has concluded that when 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

Bledsoe v. Jefferson County

275 F. Supp. 3d 1240 · District Court, D. Kansas · Aug 4, 2017

Unless the official’s alleged conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, qualified immunity applies. Id. … Morgan’s alleged conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, qualified immunity shields him from suit. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Mr.