Case law

Noonan v. Kane

305 F. Supp. 3d 587 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2018

It determined that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity since he did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Id. at 572 . … established for the purpose of qualified immunity.

Michele Rafferty v. Trumbull Cty., Ohio

915 F.3d 1087 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 15, 2019

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … “To qualify as clearly established, [t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Kindl v.

White v. Strafford County Department of Corrections

District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jul 17, 2020

Condon, 372 F.3d 39, 45 (1st Cir. 2004) (affirming the denial of qualified immunity where officers developed a witness for prosecution that they knew “would perjure himself … Coffey, 221 F.3d 342, 355 (2d Cir. 2000) (“It is firmly established that a constitutional right exists not to be deprived of liberty on the basis of false evidence fabricated by a government

Washington v. City of Cincinnati, Ohio

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 7, 2024

That is enough for the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 12 (2015) (requiring cases proffered as factually analogous “to speak [] to the specific circumstances” at bar for the clearly established prong of qualified immunity).

Bentz v. Marion, Kansas, City of Case Consolidated for Discovery; All Non-Dispositive filings to be made in Lead Case 23-cv-1179

District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 28, 2025

Sept. 30, 2021) (declining to consider qualified immunity where defendants didn’t “address whether the Fourth Amendment rights at issue were clearly established”). … So, Hudlin didn’t violate clearly established law and qualifies for qualified immunity.

Wagner v. Loza

District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Dec 16, 2021

Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for claims against them in their individual capacities. See, e.g., Williams v. … right was “clearly- established;” and (3) whether the official’s actions were objectively unreasonable).

Doe v. University of Mississippi

District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Mar 29, 2023

While Defendants’ briefing on qualified immunity is likewise limited, they squarely—and correctly— argued in their opening memorandum that “the plaintiff has the burden to establish that the alleged conduct violates clearly-established … Miss. 2019) (granting qualified immunity on due-process claims and noting “Doe does not cite a single case that would put these Defendants on notice that their conduct violated clearly established law”).

Denise Hughes v. Monique Locure

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 29, 2026

Though we typically re- view only final decisions, “the question of whether a complaint states a violation of clearly established law sufficient to overcome a qualified immunity defense does present … The district court also applied the third method in ruling that Moss’s rights were sufficiently clearly established to overcome Locure’s qualified immunity defense.

Reuben Garcia v. City of New Hope

984 F.3d 655 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 5, 2021

Thus, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity “unless: (1) [they] violated a constitutional right, and (2) that constitutional right was clearly established so that a reasonable officer would know of the right at … Because I conclude that Garcia has not shown a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, I would affirm the district court’s grant of qualified immunity on this claim.

Saint-Vil v. Alves

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 7, 2023

Strickland is the clearly established federal law governing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Williams v. … Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 391 (2000) (“It is past question that the rule set forth in Strickland qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United

Spacek v. Charles

928 S.W.2d 88 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Jul 18, 1996

Whether an official has immunity for an allegedly unlawful official action generally turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action as assessed in light of the legal rules clearly established at the time of the … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY UNDER THE TEXAS EDUCATION CODE In their third point of error, Spa-cek and Ramsey submit the trial court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment as to Charles’ state claims because they established

Anderson v. Furst

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 20, 2020

further inquiries concerning qualified immunity. … Thereafter, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish that the defendant's conduct violated a right so clearly established that any official in his position would have clearly understood he was under an

Fred Halcomb, Jr. v. Tamarra Ravenell

992 F.3d 316 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 30, 2021

Determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity “typically involves two inquiries: (1) whether the plaintiff has established the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly … Here, we conclude that even assuming a violation of Appellee’s due process rights, Appellant is entitled to qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Graham v. Dall. Area Rapid Transit

288 F. Supp. 3d 711 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 28, 2017

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. … This second part of the qualified immunity inquiry considers whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Shah v. University of Texas Southwestern Medical School

54 F. Supp. 3d 681 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 20, 2014

Shah violated a clearly established right. … Shah violated one or more of Shah’s clearly established constitutional rights when he wrote to the SPC, Dr. Shah is entitled to qualified immunity. E The court now considers whether Dr.

Keenan v. Ahern

District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 8, 2021

The doctrine of qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability for civil damages, provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … purposes of qualified immunity.”

Ludt v. Youngstown

2016 Ohio 8553 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2016

City of Olmsted Falls, 395 F.3d 291, 302 (6th Cir.2005). {¶13} Once qualified immunity is raised, it is the plaintiff's burden of proof to establish that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Thus, we need not consider whether Williams is protected by qualified immunity.

Jeffrey Queen v. City of Bowling Green

956 F.3d 893 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 22, 2020

“Clearly established” means that the “factual context of the occurrence must not exemplify a ‘legally uncertain environment’ in which qualified official immunity is appropriate.” Id. … Kentucky’s “clearly established” requirement tracks the same standards used to determine if a statutory or constitutional right is “clearly established” for purposes of determining whether an officer has federal qualified

Peter Clayton McClendon v. City of Columbia, City of Columbia James R. Carney

305 F.3d 314 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 5, 2002

established law, and that he was not entitled to qualified immunity. … entitled to qualified immunity, finding that “the law on third-party entry into homes was [not] clearly established in April 1992.”

Megan Green v. Cliff Sommer

52 F.4th 734 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 1, 2022

issue,’ involve a clearly established violation of federal law.” … On an appeal from a denial of qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss phase, “this court is constrained to the legal question whether the particular facts support the [plaintiff’s] claim that [defendants] violated clearly