Case law

Sheldon v. City of Ambler

178 P.3d 459 · Alaska Supreme Court · Mar 14, 2008

Using the Saucier analysis, the superior court held that Jones and the City of Ambler were protected by qualified immunity because “[t]here was no clearly established law ... that would have given a reasonable officer notice … "If the law d[oes] not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate." Id. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . 12 .

Hoefling v. City of Miami

17 F. Supp. 3d 1227 · District Court, S.D. Florida · May 6, 2014

“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Behrens v. … On a motion to dismiss, “[t]o evaluate claims of qualified immunity, the Court considers whether (1) the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at

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

Kersavage v. University of Tennessee

731 F. Supp. 1327 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Dec 5, 1989

Moreover, the Court does not believe that qualified immunity applies to the individual defendants as a matter of law because the law of patent infringement is clearly established, relegating the application of such immunity … Reconsideration of Qualified Immunity The two individual defendants reassert their defense of qualified immunity, contending that under applicable precedent they could not have known that their conduct violated established

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.”

Andrea Miller v. Woodston Maddox

866 F.3d 386 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 3, 2017

Lastly, we address Maddox’s argument that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions unless (1) the plaintiff has established a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right at issue was clearly established at time of the incident

Edward S., Administrator of the Estates of T.S. and A.K., Edward S. and Rachel K., Individually and as Next Friends of J.K. v. Raleigh County Housing Authority

West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 8, 2023

So, RCHA argued, it was immune from Edward S.’s negligence claims because he had not established that any alleged failing in its inspection process violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or laws of … to violations of clearly established rights or laws.

Mallak v. City of Baxter

823 F.3d 441 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 19, 2016

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability unless his conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … A defendant denied summary judgment based on qualified immunity may appeal the “purely legal issue” of “whether the facts alleged ... support a claim of violation of clearly established law.”

Mason-Funk v. City of Neenah

895 F.3d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 10, 2018

Even if the officers had used unreasonable force, the court concluded they were entitled to qualified immunity because the officers did not violate a clearly established right. Id. at 1016-22 . … "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." Kisela v.

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

Turner v. Giles

264 Ga. 812 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Dec 5, 1994

One of the grounds of appellants’ unsuccessful motion to dismiss was their claim of qualified immunity to appellee’s § 1983 action. … Indeed, the basic issue is substantially identical: A § 1983 complaint alleges that the defendant violated federal law, whereas the defendant’s claim of qualified immunity asserts that clearly established federal law was

Shadmani v. Barnes

District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 11, 2024

that they violated a clearly established constitutional right. … the qualified immunity privilege, even in the absence of case law.

Hale v. Duvall

268 F. Supp. 3d 1161 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jul 27, 2017

P. 12(b)(6) based on the defense of 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 of which a reasonable person

Riddle v. City of Ottawa

12 Kan. App. 2d 714 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · May 20, 1988

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … If he did so act, he is entitled to qualified immunity.”

Safar v. Tingle

178 F. Supp. 3d 338 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 4, 2016

As the Fourth Circuit has explained, “to escape dismissal of a complaint on qualified immunity grounds, a plaintiff must (1) allege a violation of a right (2) that is clearly established at the time of the violation.” … This is a flaw in the qualified immunity doctrine; because cases resolved on the basis of qualified immunity — or, as here, on the basis of absolute immunity— are often resolved without reaching the merits, no clearly established

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.

William Meyers, Sr. v. Baltimore County, Maryland

713 F.3d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 1, 2013

Ryan’s clearly established constitutional rights. … We repeatedly have held that it is not required that a right violated already have been recognized by a court in a specific context before such right may be held "clearly established" for purposes of qualified immunity.

Tayvin Galanakis v. City of Newton, Iowa

134 F.4th 998 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 17, 2025

“An official is not entitled to qualified immunity if (1) the plaintiff demonstrates the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) that right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the official’s alleged wrongdoing.” … Independent of federal qualified immunity, Iowa officers enjoy statutory immunity where “[t]he right . . . secured by law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation, or at the time of the alleged deprivation

Atkinson v. Taylor

316 F.3d 257 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 21, 2003

We cannot conclude that appellants are entitled to qualified immunity. Atkinson has fulfilled Sauciers first prong for denying qualified immunity by alleging a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Milhouse clearly established that such retaliatory actions, if proven, are not legal. Thus, Saucier’s second prong is satisfied and appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Shearer v. Leuenberger

256 Neb. 566 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1999

Whether an official may prevail in his or her qualified immunity defense depends upon the “ ‘objective reasonableness of [his or her] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.’ ” Id. … Hence, our analysis turns to whether or not that right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation.