Case law

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."

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.

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.

Clem v. COUNTY OF FAIRFAX, VA

150 F. Supp. 2d 888 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 17, 2001

right involved “at the appropriate level of specificity.” 12 Once this is done, the qualified immunity analysis proceeds to ascertain whether the right so defined was clearly established at the time of the incident. … If the right was not clearly established in the law at the time, no further inquiry is necessary, as qualified immunity is warranted under these circumstances. See Saucier, 121 S.Ct. at 2157.

Jok v. City of Burlington, Vermont

District Court, D. Vermont · Feb 14, 2022

Qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … City of Detroit, 936 F.3d 410, 425 (6th Cir. 2019) (denying qualified immunity and finding an officer’s slamming of an arrestee into a wall violated clearly established federal law); see

Meli v. City of Burlington, Vermont

District Court, D. Vermont · Feb 14, 2022

Torreso, 764 F.3d 217, 237 (2d Cir. 2014) (“An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used … In assessing whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court can begin with the “clearly established” inquiry first, and if it finds that a right was not clearly

Marie Moderwell v. Cuyahoga Cnty., Ohio

997 F.3d 653 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 12, 2021

“clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.”’ … Although the factual record is currently wholly undeveloped, the Corrections Defendants nonetheless argue that they are “entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right

Adam Brooks v. Clark County

828 F.3d 910 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 7, 2016

To that end, qualified immunity shields an officer from damages liability when it was not “clearly established that the Fourth Amendment prohibited [his] conduct in the ‘situation [he] confronted.’” Mullenix v. … qualified immunity defense.

Creech Poole v. City of Shreveport

13 F.4th 420 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 10, 2021

Qualified immunity shields officers from liability unless their conduct violates a clearly established federal right of which a reasonable person would have known. Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. … of clearly established 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."

Katz v. United States

194 F.3d 962 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 22, 1999

On the issue of qualified immunity, the district court held that the law governing the use of force in an arrest was clearly established. … A defendant will always be entitled to qualified immunity when the law governing his or her conduct was not clearly established -the first prong of the qualified immunity defense. 30 As a fallback position, Saucier argues

State ex rel. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources v. Kaufman

203 W. Va. 56 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1998

from suit based upon (1) statutory immunity; (2) quasi-judicial immunity; (3) common-law doctrine of qualified immunity and no violation of a clearly established right; and (4) absence of duty based upon the public duty … ; (3) common-law doctrine of qualified immunity and no violation of a clearly established right; and (4) absence of duty based upon the public duty doctrine.

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.

Rich v. City of Mayfield Heights

955 F.2d 1092 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 1992

To determine if the defendant police officers’ actions violated any clearly established constitutional rights such that they would not be entitled to rely on qualified immunity, it is necessary for the Court to decide (1) … We held that: [T]he rights the district court cites as having been clearly established were not particularized rights as required by Anderson and, thus, were not sufficient to deny the defendants qualified immunity.

Lytle v. Bexar County, Tex.

560 F.3d 404 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 25, 2009

The Clearly Established Right At the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry, we ask whether the violated constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation. … The right in question was therefore clearly established on February 28, 2006, and this is sufficient to affirmatively answer the qualified immunity question of our inquiry.

Clancy v. McCabe

58 Mass. App. Ct. 498 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 8, 2003

The qualified immunity test is a two-step inquiry. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. at 201-202. 1. Whether constitutional violation clearly established. … “[T]he ‘clearly established [right]’ prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is satisfied when (1) the subordinate’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional right, and (2) it was clearly established that a supervisor

Bird v. Dzurenda

131 F.4th 787 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 13, 2025

We conclude that such a challenge fails to allege a violation of clearly established law and reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. I. … “[I]n the prison context,” we have said that the “prohibition against retaliatory punishment” may violate “clearly established law” for qualified immunity purposes. Chavez v.

Charles Austin v. Redford Township Police Depart

690 F.3d 490 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 8, 2012

Qualified Immunity on Austin’s Excessive Force Claims “Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional … Page 7 force against a subdued suspect was clearly established.

Fenstermaker v. City of Dayton, Ohio

712 F. Supp. 639 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 17, 1988

, but also [in order to find a claim of qualified immunity to be well taken] that it was not clearly established that the circumstances under which the official or officer was confronted at the time of the challenged action … Qualified immunity protects the individual police officers from liability under federal law for their official actions, if said actions do not violate clearly established legal, statutory or constitutional rights.