Case law

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

City of Beverly Hills v. Guevara

911 S.W.2d 901 · Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco) · Dec 13, 1995

The Court’s definition of good faith is “derived substantially” from the federal qualified immunity law in “section 1983 claims”: Although the cases sometimes refer to the doctrine of qualified “good faith” immunity, the … “[W]e look to whether a reasonable official could have believed his or her conduct to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information possessed by the official at the time the conduct occurred.”

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.

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.

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.

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

Duncan v. City of Sandy Springs

District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 14, 2020

was clearly established when the violation occurred. … To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that a defendant violated clearly established law. See Johnson v. Conway, 688 F. App’x 700, 706 (11th Cir. 2017).

Feltman v. Europe

District Court, D. Colorado · Jan 18, 2022

Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the law was clearly established at the relevant time. Thomas v. Kaven, 765 F.3d 1183, 1194 (10th Cir. 2014). … According to the Tenth Circuit, “[i]n other words, ‘[g]eneral statements of the law can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes if they apply with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question.

Jerry Lynn Young v. Neil B. Biggers, Jr., J.W. Collins

938 F.2d 565 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 26, 1991

Public officers “are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Lynch v. … Herring is entitled to a qualified immunity as Sheriff.

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.

Wallace v. King

626 F.2d 1157 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 1, 1980

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.

Washington v. Starke

626 F. Supp. 1149 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jan 24, 1986

The real question in this case, as in all cases involving the claim of wralified immunity, is whether the conduct of the individual defendants violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, and if so, whether … For these reasons, I conclude that there was no clearly established constitutional or statutory law restricting the individual defendants’ discretionary conduct and, hence, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified

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

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