Case law

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

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).

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.

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.

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

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."

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Kyle v. Bedlion

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 1, 2016

Sergeant Bedlion Is Entitled To Qualified Immunity With Respect To Kyle’s Excessive-Force Claim Because It Was Not Clearly Established That Bedlion’s Use Of Force Violated Kyle’s Fourth Amendment … violated a clearly established right[.]” Muhammad, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 122. Therefore, Bedlion is entitled to qualified immunity on Kyle’s excessive -force claim. B.

McGrew v. Duncan

333 F. Supp. 3d 730 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 10, 2018

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity where their actions do not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Greene v. … This right was "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes at the time McGrew was placed in handcuffs. Id. (citation omitted).

Peggy Shumpert v. City of Tupelo, Mississip

905 F.3d 310 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 24, 2018

The resolution of this case turns primarily on whether these rights were clearly established, so we will begin with that step of the qualified immunity analysis. … established law. 60 He is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. 61 C.

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,

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.

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