Case law

Benjamin v. Washington State Bar Ass'n

138 Wash. 2d 506 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1999

Benjamin’s termination the law was not clearly established that the termination constituted state action, nor was the law clearly established that Dr. … Consequently, we need not address the second step in qualified immunity analysis—determining whether *528 the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time the dispute arose.

Bass v. Coughlin

800 F. Supp. 1066 · District Court, N.D. New York · Dec 11, 1991

“Once qualified immunity is pleaded, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed unless defendant’s alleged conduct, when committed, violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … While the right to a kosher diet was “clearly established” during the time in question, the magistrate judge correctly concluded that summary judgment was not proper on the qualified immunity question.

Jaeger v. Dubuque County

880 F. Supp. 640 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Mar 18, 1995

The standard for qualified immunity is that “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Delo, 999 F.2d 364, 366 (8th Cir.1993) (first step in qualified immunity analysis was determination of whether conduct violated any clearly established right).

Watson v. City of Kansas City, Kan.

80 F. Supp. 2d 1175 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 8, 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 Mick v. … In arguing against qualified immunity, plaintiffs do not cite a single case which establishes that defendants’ conduct violated clearly established procedural due process rights.

Catsouras v. Department of California Highway Patrol

181 Cal. App. 4th 856 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 2010

“A rule of qualified immunity shields a public officer from an action for damages under section 1983 unless the officer has violated a ‘clearly established’ constitutional right. [Citation.] As stated in Saucier [v. … The high court explained that ‘[i]f the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.’ [Citation.]

Peggy Shumpert v. City of Tupelo, Mississip

905 F.3d 310 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 24, 2018

The resolution of this case turns primarily on whether these rights were clearly established, so we will begin with that step of the qualified immunity analysis. … established law. 60 He is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. 61 C.

Dillard v. City of Springdale, Arkansas

930 F.3d 935 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 12, 2019

“An individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Estate of Walker v. … Absent either a clearly established right or a constitutional violation, qualified immunity applies. See Estate of Walker, 881 F.3d at 1060. We apply the same standard to claims under the Arkansas Constitution.

Dr. Lana Foster v. Shannon King

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 18, 2026

But the second question, whether the law is clearly established, presents a set of doctrinal challenges unique to qualified immunity. … Accordingly, we address only step two of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the alleged conduct violated clearly established law.

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.

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.

City of Beverly Hills v. Guevara

911 S.W.2d 901 · Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco) · Dec 13, 1995

The Court’s definition of good faith is “derived substantially” from the federal qualified immunity law in “section 1983 claims”: Although the cases sometimes refer to the doctrine of qualified “good faith” immunity, the … “[W]e look to whether a reasonable official could have believed his or her conduct to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information possessed by the official at the time the conduct occurred.”

Munroe v. City of Austin

300 F. Supp. 3d 915 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Mar 12, 2018

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that (1) the official violated a constitutional right, and (2) the constitutional right at issue was clearly established. *923 Saucier v. … Assuming, without deciding, that deploying his taser was an excessive use of force, Murphy is entitled to qualified immunity because doing so did not violate clearly established law.

Gausvik v. Abbey

126 Wash. App. 868 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 25, 2005

Qualified Immunity ¶66 A DSHS employee cannot be held personally liable for damages under a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action unless his conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Robinson v. … After a defendant asserts the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must show a clearly established constitutional right existed that the defendant violated.

Ronald Kramer v. Mary Cullinan

878 F.3d 1156 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 3, 2018

Cullinan was entitled to qualified immunity. … Cullinan’s actions violated a “clearly established” right. White, 137 S. Ct at 552. III. CONCLUSION Dr. Cullinan was entitled to qualified immunity.

Ronald T. Borello v. Richard Allison, Lisa Gales, John Liefer, and John Inman

446 F.3d 742 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 11, 2006

whether that right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged conduct.” … Because Plaintiff has not shown that his constitutional rights were violated, we need not move to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis: whether those rights were clearly established at the time of the attack

Chadha v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital

272 Conn. 776 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Feb 15, 2005

qualified immunity pursuant to General Statutes §§ 19a-20 and 19a-17b. … In its memorandum of decision, the court concluded that the defendants were protected by qualified immunity, pursuant to §§ 19a-20 and 19a-17b, and that qualified immunity and not absolute immunity applied to the defendants

Jones v. County of Los Angeles

802 F.3d 990 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 21, 2015

However, “[s]pecific binding precedent is not required to show that a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). … Step Two: Clearly Established Law The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was “clearly established” at the time of the violation.

Graham v. Cawthorn

427 S.W.3d 34 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 18, 2013

Under that analysis, a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated the constitutional right is clearly established, and … Brt, supra (emphasis added). 5 The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that “courts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law, without

Sonia Garcia v. Wesley Blevins

957 F.3d 596 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 30, 2020

We therefore hold Blevins is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law. IV. … The Garcias also assert that, if we conclude the law was not clearly established, we should reconsider our approach to qualified immunity.

Steven Taylor v. Robert Caples

2 F.4th 1124 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 1, 2021

Because material disputes of fact must be resolved before we can reach the legal argument of whether Caples’s conduct violates clearly established law, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. I. … violated a clearly established federal right.