Case law

Lichtenstein v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist.

316 F. Supp. 3d 855 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2018

"The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was 'clearly established' at the time of the violation." Id. at 1866 . … of controlling authority in our jurisdiction or a robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority in the Courts of Appeals [that] could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity."

Cottone v. Jenne

326 F.3d 1352 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 11, 2003

[u]nless 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.” Id. … The Supreme Court has established a two-part test to determine the applicability of qualified immunity.

Scott v. Fischer

616 F.3d 100 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 11, 2010

“clearly established” in the qualified immunity context, which governs the conduct of government officials who are likely neither lawyers nor legal scholars. … established when they took place and the defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Austin Webster v. Saint Louis County

135 F.4th 614 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 24, 2025

In the alternative, the district court concluded that Lemke was entitled to qualified immunity because her action did not violate a clearly established right. Webster also sued Lemke and St. … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established right of which a reasonable official would have known. Harlow v.

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

Allison v. Department Of Corrections

94 F.3d 494 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 30, 1996

See id. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 2156 (noting that a denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable so long as it turns on an issue of law; namely, "the purely legal issue [of] what law was 'clearly established' "). … immunity. 1 Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Farry v. City of Pawtucket

725 F. Supp. 2d 286 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Apr 13, 2010

Where the law is not sufficiently clear to provide such warning to an officer that he or she is violating plaintiffs rights, qualified immunity is appropriate; however, if the law is clearly established, the Court then considers … Mattox, 127 F.3d 1416 (11th Cir.1997) to hold that for purposes of qualified immunity analysis, the law was clearly established “that it was unconstitutional for police offi *302 cers to increase their use of physical force

John Eugene Youmans v. M. J. Oschner

626 F.3d 557 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 16, 2010

We “review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.” … was not already clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

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.

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.]

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.