Case law

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.

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.

Bailey v. Pataki

722 F. Supp. 2d 443 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 6, 2010

If either prong is missing, qualified immunity is warranted; however, the burden is on defendants to establish qualified immunity. … that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

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

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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. .

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

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

Hernandez Carrasquillo v. Rivera Rodriguez

281 F. Supp. 2d 329 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 2, 2003

; 2) if it does, was the constitutional right clearly established at the time of the facts alleged in the complaint? … Furthermore, we find that they may be enough to establish the reckless disregard of a clearly established constitutional right necessary to overcome Defendants’ qualified immunity.

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.

Williams v. Bitner

455 F.3d 186 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 25, 2006

We are asked to determine whether, for the purposes of qualified immunity, the conduct alleged by Williams constituted a violation of his “clearly established” rights. … Long, 72 F.3d 70, 72-74 (8th Cir. 1995) (denying qualified immunity because Muslim inmates had a clearly established right not to be forced to handle pork); Kenner v.