Case law

Robbins v. Wilkie

433 F.3d 755 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 10, 2006

That is, even if the right to exclude is clearly established, they are still entitled to qualified immunity because the right to be free from retaliation in the private property context is not clearly established. … Robbins has thus sufficiently alleged a violation of his clearly established Fifth Amendment rights, and Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Robbins' Bivens claim. 2.

Safar v. Tingle

178 F. Supp. 3d 338 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 4, 2016

As the Fourth Circuit has explained, “to escape dismissal of a complaint on qualified immunity grounds, a plaintiff must (1) allege a violation of a right (2) that is clearly established at the time of the violation.” … This is a flaw in the qualified immunity doctrine; because cases resolved on the basis of qualified immunity — or, as here, on the basis of absolute immunity— are often resolved without reaching the merits, no clearly established

Patsy Carolyn POE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donnie HAYDON, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants

853 F.2d 418 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 28, 1988

Poe contends that the burden is on the defendants to establish that they are entitled to qualified immunity; the plaintiff has no burden whatsoever of showing that the rights at issue were “clearly established” at the time … IV In rejecting the appellants’ claim to qualified immunity, the district court concluded that the appellants “may have violated the plaintiff's clearly established rights and hence are not qualifiedly immune.”

Henderson v. Lewis

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 10, 2019

clearly established statutory or 23 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified 25 immunity, courts must consider (1) whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right, 26 and (2) whether that right was “clearly established

Angela Johnson v. H.S. Caudill

475 F.3d 645 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 2, 2007

Because a reasonable official in Sheriff Caudill’s position would not have considered the termination to violate Johnson’s clearly established constitutional rights, however, we find Sheriff Caudill entitled to qualified … “Absent clearly established law that proscribe[s] [an official’s] specific conduct, [he] should not be subjected to suit.” Id.

Spann v. Indiana State of

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 20, 2022

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity “because they did not violate any right that was clearly established in July of 2020.” (ECF 83 at 1.) … “Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment turns on whether the plaintiff has both (1) alleged that the official committed acts violating a clearly established right and (2)

White v. Busboom

901 N.W.2d 294 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Sep 15, 2017

Whether an official may prevail in his or her qualified immunity defense depends upon the objec- tive reasonableness of his or her conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law. 13. ____: ___ … Court Erred in Determining That White’s Predeprivation Due Process R ights Were Clearly Established (a) Qualified Immunity Principles [11,12] The doctrine of qualified

Jones v. Byrnes

585 F.3d 971 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 9, 2009

protection of qualified immunity. … The first question in the qualified immunity analysis is whether the plaintiff *976 has established a prima facie case of a constitutional violation.

Tracy Presson v. Darrin Reed

65 F.4th 357 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 12, 2023

Thus, the pretrial detainee’s “right to adequate treatment was clearly established, and the district court properly denied the defendants qualified immunity.” Id. … Construing the facts in the light most favorable to Presson, his “right to adequate treatment was clearly established, and the district court properly denied the defendants qualified immunity.”

Shemwell v. Cannon

352 F. Supp. 3d 690 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 15, 2019

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity insulates a government official from civil damages liability when the official's actions do not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … In analyzing whether an individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the court considers whether plaintiff has alleged any violation of a clearly established right, and, if so, whether the individual defendant's

Wojcik v. Town of North Smithfield

874 F. Supp. 508 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Jan 4, 1995

Second, the RCC defendants argue that they enjoy qualified immunity from plaintiffs’ cause of action because plaintiffs have not alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Unlike state actors or private individuals charged with a deprivation of rights, a municipality is not entitled to claim qualified immunity, even for violation of rights that are not clearly established. Leatherman v.

Folks v. Sainato

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jul 11, 2025

Aug. 29, 2024) (per curiam) (applying the any-crime rule post-Chiaverini to evaluate an officer’s pre-Chiaverini actions “[b]ecause the qualified immunity analysis focuses on whether the law was clearly established at … Qualified immunity “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Mullenix v.

City of McGregor v. Janett

480 N.W.2d 576 · Court of Appeals of Iowa · Nov 26, 1991

Finally, they asserted that they were entitled to qualified immunity. … The test for qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage of a proceeding is an objective one: “to be clearly established, ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand

Donald Gagne, Etc. v. City of Galveston, and Mike Putnal

805 F.2d 558 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 9, 1986

qualified immunity from damages for his death. … But until then, the defense of qualified immunity remains available.

Pelerin v. Carlton County

498 N.W.2d 33 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Mar 23, 1993

To avoid dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity, a plaintiff alleging violation of a constitutional right by a public official must allege that the violated right was “clearly established” in a particularized sense. … The law in this area was thus not “clearly established” when Pelerin was fired.

Collins v. School Board of Dade County, Florida

981 F.2d 1203 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 26, 1993

Most important for qualified immunity purposes, Loudermill established no bright line test for when a delay would become a constitutional violation. 4 See generally Barts v. … Joyner, 865 F.2d 1187, 1194 (11th Cir.1989) ("Harlow's 'clearly established' standard requires that a bright line be crossed" if defense of qualified immunity is to be overcome). 11 No controlling decision involved facts

Booker v. Graham

974 F.3d 101 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 31, 2020

While qualified immunity “does not require 14 a case directly on point for a right to be clearly established, existing precedent must 15 have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” … of qualified immunity.

Oberist Lee Saunders v. George C. Duke

766 F.3d 1262 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 8, 2014

Under this doctrine, “courts may not award damages against a government official in his personal capacity unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and the right was ‘clearly established’ at the … Saunders] to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate.” Lee, 284 F.3d at 1194. With these principles in mind, we turn to the qualified immunity analysis.

Gasparre v. City of St. Paul

501 N.W.2d 683 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jun 22, 1993

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before commencement of discovery. Mitchell v.

Venegas v. County of Los Angeles

63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 741 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 2007

Today qualified immunity shields a public officer from an action for damages under 42 United States Code section 1983 *1242 unless the officer has violated a “clearly established” constitutional right. 24 By “clearly established … established’ at the time.”