Case law

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.

Gallaher v. Goldsmith

213 F. Supp. 2d 496 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 2002

When analyzing a qualified immunity claim, a court must first identify the constitutional or statutory right at stake and then determine if that right was clearly established at the time the defendants violated those rights … Because plaintiff pled a valid constitutional right he has satisfied the first prong of the qualified immunity inquiry. It must next be determined if that right was “clearly established.”

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.

Rodis v. City & County of San Francisco

558 F.3d 964 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 9, 2009

demonstrated a violation of clearly established law.” … The arrest, therefore, was not clearly established as unlawful. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

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

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.

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

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

P.F. v. Mendres

21 F. Supp. 2d 476 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 29, 1998

Generally speaking, “[ujnless plaintiffs allegations state a claim of a violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” … established right occurred; Judge Greenberg would have ended qualified immunity analysis at that stage of the inquiry).

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

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.

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.

Shadmani v. Barnes

District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 11, 2024

that they violated a clearly established constitutional right. … the qualified immunity privilege, even in the absence of case law.

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

Pethtel v. West Virginia State Police

568 F. Supp. 2d 658 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Jul 29, 2008

Qualified immunity is abrogated only upon a showing that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right and that such right was clearly established at the time the conduct occurred. Id. … Furthermore, even if the plaintiff had established a constitutional injury, the supervisors are entitled to qualified immunity because, as discussed above, such injury was not clearly established at the time. E.

Lynette Christmas v. Harris County, Georgia

51 F.4th 1348 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 28, 2022

DISCUSSION “Qualified immunity offers complete protection for govern- ment officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … If, however, the official vio- lated the law[,] but his conduct was not clearly established as un- lawful, the court must grant him qualified immunity.