Case law

Kimberly Boude v. Michael Heady

855 F.3d 930 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 5, 2017

Qualified immunity is a basis to dismiss a claim against a public employee if the alleged conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … This court need not address the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See Harris, 550 U.S. at 377.

Smith v. Coughlin

727 F. Supp. 834 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 28, 1989

The remainder of this case must nevertheless be disposed of on qualified immunity grounds. 7 State officials are immune from suits for damages 8 alleging constitutional violations if it was not clearly established at the … The court further held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the officials had not violated clearly established law, citing three reasons: (1) the defendant prison officials could reasonably have

Armstrong v. New Mexico Disability Determination Services

278 F. Supp. 3d 1193 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 30, 2017

The Supreme Court has clarified that the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity test is a very high burden for the plaintiff: “A Government official’s conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time … There is, therefore, no evidence that Fernandez-Rice violated clearly established law, so qualified immunity bars Armstrong’s claims against her.

Engesser v. Fox

District Court, D. South Dakota · Sep 23, 2019

Qualified immunity “Public officials are immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they have violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at … Second, the court must “ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id. A negative outcome to either inquiry results in qualified immunity for the official. Pearson v.

Ringuette v. City of Fall River

906 F. Supp. 55 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 9, 1995

“Qualified immunity shields state officials exercising discretionary authority from civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … has no qualified immunity from suit, presents a question of law... .

Cochran v. Gilliam

656 F.3d 300 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 2, 2011

a violation of clearly established law.” … Because the subject of the interlocutory appeal is limited to the pure legal issue of whether the facts alleged constitute a violation of clearly established law, “a defendant seeking qualified immunity must be willing to

Shilling v. Crawford

536 F. Supp. 2d 1227 · District Court, D. Nevada · Mar 12, 2008

Plaintiff argues Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated his clearly established rights under RLUIPA. 1. … Qualified immunity applies unless a defendant’s conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Hope v.

Rand v. Lavoie

2017 DNH 177 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Sep 5, 2017

Legal Standard To overcome Lavoie’s qualified immunity defense, Rand must show that Lavoie “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Qualified immunity attaches unless Lavoie “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Mullenix, 136 S. Ct. at 308 (citation omitted).

Hernandez v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services

380 F.3d 872 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 31, 2004

The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry. First, a court must decide whether a plaintiff’s allegation, if true, establishes a violation of a clearly established right. Hare v. … Even if the government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable.

Corey Airport Services, Inc. v. DeCosta

587 F.3d 1280 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 16, 2009

We conclude that these Defendants did not violate a clearly established constitutional right and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. I. … Because this is not such a case, the Defendants did not violate a clearly established constitutional right and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Galloway v. Hadl

548 F. Supp. 2d 1215 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 28, 2008

If plaintiffs allegations sufficiently allege the deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right, qualified immunity will not protect defendants. I. … Because plaintiff has not alleged a clearly established violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Hadl, Hofer and Riggs are entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. B.

Jesse Drewniak v. P U.S. Customs and Border Protection et al.

2021 DNH 020 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jan 26, 2021

Qualter’s Assertions of Qualified Immunity Do Not Warrant a Stay of All Pretrial Proceedings and Discovery Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity if “their conduct does not violate clearly … It is for this reason that, “[u]nless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery

Wright v. Watson

209 F. Supp. 3d 1344 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Aug 25, 2016

In the Eleventh Circuit, “the law can be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S. … “A right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes in one of three ways: ‘(1) case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional right; (2) a broad statement of principle within

Amanda Pierner-Lytge v. Montrell Hobbs

60 F.4th 1039 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 23, 2023

Qualified Immunity “[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at … No. 22-1976 Under prong two, Pierner-Lytge must demonstrate that it was clearly established in April 2020 that probable cause to arrest her for disorderly conduct did not exist.

Saenz v. Lovington Municipal School District

105 F. Supp. 3d 1271 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Apr 30, 2015

established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis.

Zahra v. Town Of Southold

48 F.3d 674 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 21, 1995

See Natale, 927 F.2d at 105 ("The threshold issue in determining the applicability of [the] qualified immunity defense is whether [the plaintiffs] had a 'clearly established right' to the permits at issue."); see also Amsden … th[at] 'clearly established' right[ ]."

Anselmo v. County of Shasta

873 F. Supp. 2d 1247 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 8, 2012

“[Qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have … If a right is clearly established, a public official is granted qualified immunity only if a reasonable official would not have known that his conduct violated the clearly established right. See id.

Allen v. Kevin Taylor

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 21, 2025

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … For now, the officers cannot avail themselves of qualified immunity because Allen has identified a clearly established right to be free from unlawful custody as part of a prosecution.

Cole v. Buchanan County School Board

328 F. App'x 204 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 14, 2009

established prong” of the qualified immunity analysis). … The “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis turns on “the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken

Garcia-Montoya v. State Treasurer's Office

130 N.M. 25 · New Mexico Supreme Court · Jan 18, 2001

Qualified immunity “shield[s] [government officials performing discretionary functions] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … “clearly established” at the time of the official’s conduct.