Case law

McCormick v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs

28 Kan. App. 2d 744 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Mar 30, 2001

light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken. … The holding in Kalina leaves no doubt it was clearly established. Thereafter, a prosecutor is to be charged with knowledge that such an act was unreasonable. Long, therefore, is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Hudson v. Hall

231 F.3d 1289 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 30, 2000

violated clearly established law." … clearly established law.

Jonathan Jacobson v. James McCormick

763 F.3d 914 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 14, 2014

In his supplemental briefing, Jacobson conceded that we “must address” the issue of qualified immunity, but argued the officers are not entitled to immunity because it was clearly established that strip searches were permissible … McCormick and Voltaire are entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless the facts taken in the light most favorable to Jacobson establish that the officers violated a constitutional right, and that the right was clearly

Wojcik v. Town of North Smithfield

874 F. Supp. 508 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Jan 4, 1995

Second, the RCC defendants argue that they enjoy qualified immunity from plaintiffs’ cause of action because plaintiffs have not alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Unlike state actors or private individuals charged with a deprivation of rights, a municipality is not entitled to claim qualified immunity, even for violation of rights that are not clearly established. Leatherman v.

Carswell v. Camp

54 F.4th 307 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 30, 2022

But Carswell says this was “the opposite of a refusal or failure to rule” because the “district court clearly indicated it would timely address Individual Defendants’ qualified immunity defense.” … No. 21-10171 established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

Smith v. Cochran

339 F.3d 1205 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 12, 2003

In addition, the court denied summary judgment on Cochran’s claim of qualified immunity because it found that the constitutional violation Smith alleged was clearly established at the time of the claimed violation. … Because Cochran argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity under the plaintiff’s version of the facts, focusing on the legal issue whether the constitutional right he allegedly violated was clearly established, we

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.”

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.

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.

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.

Tracy Presson v. Darrin Reed

65 F.4th 357 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 12, 2023

Thus, the pretrial detainee’s “right to adequate treatment was clearly established, and the district court properly denied the defendants qualified immunity.” Id. … Construing the facts in the light most favorable to Presson, his “right to adequate treatment was clearly established, and the district court properly denied the defendants 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.”

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.

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.)

Braithwaite v. Tropea

District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 27, 2023

To determine whether qualified immunity applies, courts consider “whether the facts shown make out a violation of a constitutional right and whether the right at issue was clearly established … The United State Supreme Court has long extended qualified immunity to court reporters, such as Conner, where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

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

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

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

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.