Case law

Sanders v. District of Columbia

522 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 8, 2007

Qualified immunity “shields State officials from liability for their discretionary functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … step of the qualified immunity analysis.

Davis v. Clifford

825 F.3d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 13, 2016

Qualified immunity “shields public officials from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Estate of Booker, 745 F.3d at 411 (quotation omitted). … Qualified immunity having been claimed, “the plaintiff carries a two-part burden to show: (1) that the defendant’s actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right, and, if so, (2) that the right was clearly

Thomas Hayden Barnes v. Ronald M. Zaccari

669 F.3d 1295 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 7, 2012

We turn now to the second part of the qualified immunity analysis: Was Barnes’s right to this predeprivation process clearly established at the relevant time? 2. … The process due Barnes was also clearly established.

Huber v. North Carolina State University

163 N.C. App. 638 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 20, 2004

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials per *645 forming discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … We must therefore determine whether Plaintiff’s right to privacy was clearly established at the time.

Davdrin Goffin v. Robbie Ashcraft

977 F.3d 687 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 15, 2020

Officer Ashcraft is entitled to qualified immunity if her conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Police officers are not entitled to qualified immunity if “(1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.”

Chad J. Alvarado v. Jon E. Litscher, Secretary, Jane Gamble, B. McCreedy

267 F.3d 648 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 28, 2001

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary functions so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To overcome a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must first allege the deprivation of an actual constitutional right, and second, show that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Estate of C.A. v. Castro

547 F. App'x 621 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 25, 2013

Individual Defendants’ Qualified Immunity State actors sued in their individual capacity under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … An official “does not lose qualified immunity merely because a certain right is clearly established in the abstract....

Liebenstein v. Crowe

826 F. Supp. 1174 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Sep 4, 1992

Once a public official has raised the defense of qualified immunity,, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of the clearly established right that he claims was violated. Abel v. … The use of expert testimony is particularly ill-suited to defeat qualified immunity, especially when there is no clearly established law that the defendants violated.

Khansari v. City of Houston

14 F. Supp. 3d 842 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 9, 2014

’s Fourth Amendment rights, the court turns directly to the second analytical step of the qualified immunity analysis: whether that right was clearly established when the actions at issue occurred. … January 26, 2010), plaintiffs acknowledge that [f]or the purposes of the qualified immunity analysis, “ ‘clearly established’ means that the ‘contours of the right’ are ‘sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would

Rankel v. County of Westchester

135 A.D.3d 731 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 13, 2016

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity under 42 USC § 1983 for discretionary functions if either (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable … for them to believe that their acts did not violate clearly established rights (see Doe ex rel.

David Jones v. Clark Cty., Ky.

959 F.3d 748 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 18, 2020

Unless the law was clearly established at the time the action occurred, the government official will receive qualified immunity and be insulated from civil suit. Id. … To rebut qualified immunity, Jones must prove that Murray violated a constitutional right and that this right was clearly established. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 589.

Morgan v. Bubar

115 Conn. App. 603 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jul 14, 2009

The defendants argue that Carini and Castronova are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … “When [a motion for summary judgment] is based on assertion of qualified immunity, the first issue is whether a clearly established right is at stake. ...

Benjamin Fogle and Amanda Fogle, on behalf of minor child P.F. v. Clay Elementary School-Southeast Polk Community School District, Dirk Halupnik, Andrea Burns and Carla Rivas, individually and in their official capacities with Southeast Polk Community School District

Supreme Court of Iowa · Nov 14, 2025

Supp. 3d at 891–94.  9 illegality of the municipal employee’s actions was not clearly established when the employee acted. Iowa Code § 670.4A(1). … As a couplet, when the substantive qualified immunity defense is inapplicable, then the heightened qualified immunity pleading standard is also inapplicable.” Id. at 805.

Morgan v. Morgensen

465 F.3d 1041 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 6, 2006

Whether the Constitutional Right was Clearly Established [7] We proceed to the second qualified immunity inquiry: whether that right was clearly established. … A prison official is not entitled to qualified immunity if the law governing his conduct was clearly established such that a reasonable prison official would know that his conduct was unlawful.

Timmon v. Wood

633 F. Supp. 2d 453 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Apr 21, 2008

Applying those clearly established rules to this case, the dispositive issue with respect to qualified immunity is whether Defendants acted with the intent to silence Plaintiff’s viewpoint or whether they acted with the intent … If Defendants acted with intent to silence Plaintiffs viewpoint then they violated clearly established law and would not be entitled to qualified immunity.

Rosenthal v. County of Madison

339 Mont. 419 · Montana Supreme Court · Oct 23, 2007

“The doctrine of qualified immunity operates to shield government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Moreover, even if we were to speculate with Rosenthal that new evidence would establish that Zenker’s conduct was entitled to qualified immunity rather than absolute immunity, he does not show how he will pierce the qualified

Carter v. Diamond URS Huntsville, LLC

175 F. Supp. 3d 711 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 30, 2016

“The ‘clearly established’ standard does not mean that official’s conduct is protected by qualified immunity unless ‘the very action in question has previously been held unlawful.’” … The officer is “entitled to qualified immunity if his or her conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time of his or her actions,” even if the conduct violated the

Darryl Pernell Butler v. Hope Davis

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 21, 2019

immunity because Butler’s right was not clearly established. … See Glasscox, 903 F.3d at 1213 (explaining that, to defeat a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that “(1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the

Blakely v. Andrade

360 F. Supp. 3d 453 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 23, 2019

If the court answers both the constitutional violation and clearly established questions in the affirmative, the officer is not entitled to qualified immunity. Lytle , 560 F.3d at 410 . … For purposes of qualified immunity, "clearly established" means that the "contours of the right" are "sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right."

(PC) Anderson v. Becerra

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 17, 2020

Harris, 935 F.3d 670, 675-76 (9th Cir. 2019) (stating that dismissal on 25 immunity grounds may qualify as a strike for failure to state a claim where the immunity defense 26 is clear on the face of the complaint); Washington … the face of the complaint, and 3 the entirety of the complaint is dismissed for a qualifying reason under the PLRA[]”).