Case law

Meyer v. State

292 Or. App. 647 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 5, 2018

immunity on those claims, because none of those rights were clearly established. … The right in question was clearly established at the relevant time. As a result, Niswender and Sugahara were not entitled to qualified immunity.

Patricia MacIntosh v. Ron Clous

69 F.4th 309 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 31, 2023

Whether the Right Was Clearly Established The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis asks whether the right was “clearly established such ‘that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing … Taken as true, MacIntosh’s allegations plausibly show that Clous is not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established that Clous’s conduct violated MacIntosh’s First Amendment rights.

Keys Youth Services, Inc. v. City of Olathe, Kan.

38 F. Supp. 2d 914 · District Court, D. Kansas · Feb 23, 1999

“If the district court denies the defendant qualified immunity, the court should identify on the record the defendant’s conduct that violated clearly established law.” Mick v. … Even if so, the law on this point is not clearly established and thus defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on any such claim. B.

Armstrong v. City of Melvindale

432 F.3d 695 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 6, 2006

But where, as here, Defendants do not dispute the facts—they claim instead that the alleged facts do not reflect a violation of clearly established law—“a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity . . . is … right was clearly established.”

Tanya Martin v. City of Broadview Heights

712 F.3d 951 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 9, 2013

Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … The sources of clearly established law to be considered are limited.

Colston v. Ala. Agric. & Mech. Univ. (In re Hugine)

256 So. 3d 30 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Mar 17, 2017

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Anderson [v. Creighton , 483 U.S. 635 ,] 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 [ (1987) ]." Pearson v. … "Because pre-existing law did not provide fair warning to Appellees that demoting Rioux under these circumstances would violate clearly established federal law, Appellees are entitled to qualified immunity."

Gallaher v. Goldsmith

213 F. Supp. 2d 496 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 2002

When analyzing a qualified immunity claim, a court must first identify the constitutional or statutory right at stake and then determine if that right was clearly established at the time the defendants violated those rights … Because plaintiff pled a valid constitutional right he has satisfied the first prong of the qualified immunity inquiry. It must next be determined if that right was “clearly established.”

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.

Green v. City of New York

465 F.3d 65 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 5, 2006

immunity. 12 The defense of qualified immunity and the merits of the alleged constitutional violations are intertwined because the first step in a qualified immunity analysis is determining "in the light most favorable to … Giblin is entitled to qualified immunity for the seizure he directed unless (1) Walter's constitutional right to be free from seizure was clearly established, and (2) it was objectively unreasonable for Giblin to believe

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Oct 17, 2003

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an individual is immune if the actions complained of were taken in good faith in the performance of one's duties, and the acts do not violate any clearly established constitutional … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Id. ; Robinson v.

Mueller v. Auker

576 F.3d 979 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 10, 2009

by the Court of Appeals — that Mitchell’s actions violated clearly established law....” … The legal issues involved in that appeal-whether Aguilar violated clearly established constitutional protections— are identical to those governing the question of Aguilar’s qualified immunity.

Wallace v. King

626 F.2d 1157 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 1, 1980

Rios v. City of Azusa

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 20, 2026

OPINION MILLER, Circuit Judge: In an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, we may consider “whether the facts establish a violation of a clearly … In such an appeal, we may review “whether the facts establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, thus defeating qualified immunity.” Peck, 51 F.4th at 885.

Foster v. Runnels

554 F.3d 807 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 5, 2009

The District Court however found that Cole was entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right in question was not clearly established. … Clearly Established Right The District Court found that Cole was entitled to qualified immunity because the Eighth Amendment right to adequate food was not clearly established such that it would be clear to a reasonable corrections

Carter v. Broome County

District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 21, 2019

Supp. 3d 305, 316 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (finding clearly established for qualified immunity purposes the "broader right to be free from deliberate indifference to serious medical needs" and applying it to pre-trial detainee). … True or not, qualified immunity would not attach to those facts.

Anderson v. Village of Forest Park

238 Ill. App. 3d 83 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 28, 1992

In addition, she argues that the Harlow immunity did not apply when the discretionary act violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … Because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, defendants had the burden of proving either that the law was not clearly established or, if the law was clearly established, that defendants neither knew nor should have

Terry v. Cnty. of Milwaukee

357 F. Supp. 3d 732 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jan 11, 2019

The test for qualified immunity is (1) whether the defendants' alleged actions violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (2) "whether the implicated right was clearly established at the time." Jones v. … Therefore, if Bevenue did ignore Terry's cries for help as she went into labor, qualified immunity would not protect Bevenue from suit because "qualified immunity does not insulate state actors from violations of clearly

Ware v. James City County, Virginia

652 F. Supp. 2d 693 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Sep 4, 2009

Defendants further argue that, even assuming that the arrest was unconstitutional, they are entitled to qualified immunity because the rights which Defendants allegedly violated were not clearly established at the time of … Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the Court must determine whether the right alleged to have been violated was a clearly established right, such that a reasonable police officer would have known,

Campbell v. Burt

949 F. Supp. 1461 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Jun 14, 1996

Qualified Immunity For Defendant’s Failure to File a Timely Petition 19. An official is entitled to qualified immunity if the right which he allegedly violated is not “clearly established.” Anderson v. … established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Cortezz Dickerson v. William Bower

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Feb 21, 2025

DISPOSITIVE ORDER FINDING QUALIFIED OFFICIAL IMMUNITY AND THE PROPER STANDARD OF REVIEW Appellees asserted in their answer to the complaint the affirmative defense of qualified official immunity … Appellees were entitled to qualified immunity from the torts Appellants alleged against them.