Case law

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.

Trenisha Webster v. Jennifer Westlake

41 F.4th 1004 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 27, 2022

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity in § 1983 lawsuits unless they violated a federal “statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.” City & Cnty. of S.F. v. … Although the detectives violated Webster’s Fourth Amendment rights, they are entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established on October 16, 2018. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 244.

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,

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

Karen Bonitz v. Michael v. Fair, Karen Bonitz v. Michael v. Fair, Appeal of William Shaughnessy

804 F.2d 164 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 3, 1986

When a government official asserts a defense of qualified immunity, his argument is that, even assuming the plaintiff’s allegations are true, he is immune from suit because the law allegedly violated was not clearly established … ” were clearly established.

Stephen Burrell v. Mike McIlroy Glen C. Rector Jeff Thorpe

464 F.3d 853 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 20, 2006

Moreover, even if Rule 41 were applicable to the search, at the time of the search the failure to serve a warrant at the outset of a search was not a clearly established violation of the constitution. … Thus, on the facts of this case, the district court did not err in finding that the detectives were entitled to qualified immunity on this issue.

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.)

Pyle v. Woods

874 F.3d 1257 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 1, 2017

Database was not clearly established. … As in the Pyle matter, the district court concluded Detective Woods and Mayor Cullimore were entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right at issue was not clearly established.

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.

Uduko v. Cozzens

975 F. Supp. 2d 750 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 27, 2013

Plaintiff goes on to argue that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff pled that his rights that were violated were clearly established at the time of defendants’ conduct. … Of course, those rights are clearly established. However, if courts define rights at such a broad level, qualified immunity will virtually cease to exist. Therefore, in Anderson v.

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

Crowell v. Kirkpatrick

667 F. Supp. 2d 391 · District Court, D. Vermont · Sep 14, 2009

“clearly established” right. … “If the right [alleged to be violated] was not clearly established ..., then qualified immunity shields the defendant.” Walczyk, 496 F.3d at 154 .

McGuire v. County of Hawai'i. Concurring Opinion by Ginoza, J, filed 04/08/2025 [ada].

Hawaii Supreme Court · Apr 8, 2025

Rafe Foreman, Qualified Immunity: A Legal Fiction That Has Outlived Utility, 48 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 503, 519 (2022). The good faith test evolved to a clearly-established-law test. Harlow v. … Qualified immunity whitewashes civil rights deprivations by excusing bad-acting officials from liability so long as their conduct does not offend a clearly established right.

Bedinghaus v. Modern Graphic Arts

15 F.3d 1027 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 9, 1994

Clearly, “the company” refers to the Times and its affiliates, not to some entity that happens to purchase the assets of one of the affiliates. We see no ambiguity in the crucial terms. … As the First Circuit said in Bellino: Federal courts have established no hard and fast rule that an individual must suffer a period of unemployment to qualify for severance benefits under ERISA.

Molloy v. Blanchard

907 F. Supp. 46 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Nov 22, 1995

Chief Blanchard Qualified immunity shields government officials who are performing discretionary functions “from [personal] liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Even where the law is “clearly established,” qualified immunity may apply if the government official can prove “extraordinary circumstances” such that he or she “neither knew nor should have known of the relevant legal standard

Barbara Donald v. Tyler Norris

131 F.4th 1255 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 13, 2025

We need address only whether Burrell’s right to some other treatment was clearly established because that answer resolves the qualified-immunity question. … Indeed, the formulation from the Hill dicta would eliminate the “clearly established” part of the qualified-immunity analysis as we know it.

Gloria Jean Harper, Individually and as Mother and Next Friend of Jordan Harper a Minor and Jordan Harper v. Harris County, Texas, John P. Denholm

21 F.3d 597 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 28, 1994

Qualified immunity protects a police officer from liability if a reasonable competent law enforcement officer would not have known that his actions violated clearly established law. Anderson v. … The examination of a claim of qualified immunity is a two-step process. The first inquiry is whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional' right. Siegert v.

Johnson v. Adams

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 28, 2021

Plaintiff argues that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiff first asserts that his federal malicious prosecution and Brady violation claims were clearly established in 1999. … To overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show that the official violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established at the time” of the official’s conduct. District of Columbia v.

Shah v. University of Texas Southwestern Medical School

54 F. Supp. 3d 681 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 20, 2014

Shah violated a clearly established right. … Shah violated one or more of Shah’s clearly established constitutional rights when he wrote to the SPC, Dr. Shah is entitled to qualified immunity. E The court now considers whether Dr.

People of Michigan v. Robert Elijah Anthony

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 22, 2019

“A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if, after a review of the entire record, we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” … Defendant maintains that the more recent passage of the MMMA calls into question the Michigan Supreme Court’s prior holding in Kazmierczak, which allows the smell of marijuana alone to establish probable cause.