Case 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.”

Rodis v. City & County of San Francisco

558 F.3d 964 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 9, 2009

demonstrated a violation of clearly established law.” … The arrest, therefore, was not clearly established as unlawful. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

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

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.

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.

Norton v. Hall

834 A.2d 928 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 30, 2003

of qualified immunity. … Even if the Nortons had produced facts sufficient to support a constitutional claim, Hall would be entitled to qualified immunity because, given the information she possessed, her conduct “does not violate clearly established

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

Owens v. Baltimore City State's Attorneys Office

767 F.3d 379 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 24, 2014

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for “civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … In evaluating whether qualified immunity exists, we must keep in mind that it is the plaintiffs constitutional right that must be clearly established, not a plaintiffs access to a monetary remedy.

Omar Ex Rel. Cannon v. Lindsey

243 F. Supp. 2d 1339 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 14, 2003

Qualified Immunity Defendants, all of whom are being sued in them individual capacities, raise the defense of qualified immunity. … Last spring, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that clarifies how a court is to determine whether a particular right was “clearly established” for the purposes of a qualified immunity analysis. In Hope v.

Liebenstein v. Crowe

826 F. Supp. 1174 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Sep 4, 1992

Once a public official has raised the defense of qualified immunity,, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of the clearly established right that he claims was violated. Abel v. … The use of expert testimony is particularly ill-suited to defeat qualified immunity, especially when there is no clearly established law that the defendants violated.

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.

Pethtel v. West Virginia State Police

568 F. Supp. 2d 658 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Jul 29, 2008

Qualified immunity is abrogated only upon a showing that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right and that such right was clearly established at the time the conduct occurred. Id. … Furthermore, even if the plaintiff had established a constitutional injury, the supervisors are entitled to qualified immunity because, as discussed above, such injury was not clearly established at the time. E.