Case law

Clancy v. McCabe

441 Mass. 311 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 26, 2004

McCabe moved for summary judgment, claiming he was entitled to qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials, in the course of performing discretionary tasks, from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Sydney Rieman v. Gloria Vasquez

96 F.4th 1085 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 5, 2024

The panel held that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity from suit for failing to provide notice of the hearing. Ms. Rieman had a due process right to such notice and that right was clearly established. … immunity because they did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights.

Aboufariss v. City of De Kalb

305 Ill. App. 3d 1054 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 7, 1999

To determine whether qualified immunity applies to a defendant in section 1983 actions, courts examine whether the defendant’s conduct violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights and whether the rights were clearly established … Once the defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff carries the burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right. Forman, 104 F.3d at 957-58 .

Bryheim Jamar Baskin v. Rafael Martinez (081982) (Camden County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 9, 2020

If the right at issue is not clearly established, then the officer alleged to have violated that right will be entitled to qualified immunity. … Many Section 1983 cases rise or fall on the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity.

Pratt v. Ottum

2000 Me. 203 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 27, 2000

Because their actions violated plaintiffs clearly established rights, defendants are not entitled to a qualified immunity as a matter of law.” II. … Because their actions violated [Pratt’s] clearly established rights, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.”

Jennings v. Jones

499 F.3d 2 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 17, 2007

Prong Two: Whether the Law Was Clearly Established The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis asks “whether the constitutional right ... was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the incident such that it would ‘be … violated that clearly established constitutional right.”

Hartley Ex Rel. Hartley v. Parnell

193 F.3d 1263 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 28, 1999

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … (The second inquiry is whether the violated federal right, if any, was clearly established.)

Estate of Aaron Bruce Cadman v. Dennis, et al.

2018 DNH 018 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jan 29, 2018

Police officers “are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 5 The court focuses on the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis because it is dispositive of the excessive force claim. See Pearson v.

Mohammad Siddique v. Michael Laliberte

972 F.3d 898 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 26, 2020

We elect to resolve this case on the second part of the qualified immunity test—whether the right was clearly established. This appeal, in its current iteration, involves only a First Amendment retaliation claim. … No such clearly established law exists.

Unwin v. Campbell

863 F.2d 124 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 9, 1988

A court must look to the “objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law,” to determine whether the doctrine of qualified immunity applies. Id. … established law and are entitled to qualified immunity.

Gesell

District Court, D. Arizona · Feb 3, 2026

(Doc. 25 at 5.) 13 In response, Plaintiff once again does not attempt to identify a prior case that might 14 qualify as clearly established law supporting his position. (Doc. 26 at 8.) … Cnty. of San Diego, 985 F.3d 657, 673 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[E]ven 10 where the clearly established legal standard requires [subjective] deliberate indifference, 11 the qualified immunity inquiry should concentrate

KARA B. v. Dane County

198 Wis. 2d 24 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Nov 2, 1995

Merely alleging a general violation of a right that may be clearly established by the constitution or á statute is insufficient clarity of established law to justify withholding qualified immunity. … Recognizing that the defendants' qualified immunity could be pierced "only if the specific right they violated was clearly established at the time they violated it," the K.H. court decided the issue against them.

Thacker v. City of Hyattsville

135 Md. App. 268 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 14, 2000

immunity under federal law, and that, as a matter of law, such findings establish lack of malice and qualified immunity under section 5-507. … Because Judge Williams clearly applied the objective federal standard for qualified immunity, we hold that his decision that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from section 1983 liability did not collaterally

Jenkins v. University of Minnesota

838 F.3d 938 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 3, 2016

Qualified Immunity “‘Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for damages so long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Where, as here, a defendant fails to establish that he did not violate a right or that the right in question was not clearly established, then he is not entitled to qualified immunity, regardless of whether he acted under

Degolia v. Kenton Cnty.

381 F. Supp. 3d 740 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · May 7, 2019

For an alleged right to be clearly established, the doctrine of qualified immunity "do[es] not require a case directly on point, but existing precedent must have placed the ... constitutional question beyond debate." … . *772 But because Branstutter violated a clearly established constitutional right, a jury could conclude he acted in bad faith. Therefore, Branstutter is not entitled to qualified official immunity. B.

James Ryan Singletary v. Juan Vargas

804 F.3d 1174 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 29, 2015

Qualified Immunity Resolution of Defendant’s appeal requires us to decide whether Plaintiff proved that Defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity for his actions.9 Qualified immunity balances two important … Clearly Established Law Even assuming a constitutional violation, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless Plaintiff can show that his Fourth Amendment rights were “clearly established” at the time of

Toney (ID 71755) v. Harrod

District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 7, 2021

Clearly Established Right In the alternative, the Court concludes that Quidichay is entitled to qualified immunity because Toney cannot establish the second prong of the qualified … Clearly Established Law Under the second prong of the qualified immunity test, Sullivan is entitled to immunity unless his alleged actions violated a clearly established right

(PC) Castellano v. Shrum

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 17, 2023

Legal Standard – Qualified Immunity 13 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 14 violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Ramirez–Palmer, 25 301 F.3d 1043, 1053 (9th Cir. 2002). 26 “For the second step in the qualified immunity analysis—whether the constitutional right 27 was clearly established at

Winfield v. Keefe

357 F. Supp. 3d 90 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 20, 2019

"Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known," City of Escondido, Cal. v. … "The 'clearly established' analysis has two sub-parts." Id.

Williams v. Garrett

722 F. Supp. 254 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Oct 4, 1989

In order to be entitled to qualified immunity the party’s conduct must not have violated clearly established constitutional norms. Id. at 641, 107 S.Ct. at 3039. … This court must determine what was clearly established in 1986.