Case law

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.

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).

Marrero-Mendez v. Calixto-Rodriguez

830 F.3d 38 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 19, 2016

Clearly Established Law Appellants would still be entitled to qualified immunity if the right they violated was not "clearly established" at the time of their conduct. … establishes' law for the purposes of a qualified immunity analysis").

Thornhill v. Breazeale

88 F. Supp. 2d 647 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Feb 10, 2000

Plaintiffs, therefore, have alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right and satisfied the first prong of the qualified immunity test. … “The second prong of the qualified immunity test is better understood as two separate inquiries: whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident; and, if so, whether

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.

Diaz v. Cantu

123 F.4th 736 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 13, 2024

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528–30 (1985) (qualified immunity based on a lack of clearly established law); Plumhoff v. … established to strip an official of 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.