Case law

Collar v. Austin

86 F. Supp. 3d 1294 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Feb 5, 2015

immunity, the Court is required, sua sponte, to determine whether the allegations of the complaint reflect the violation of a clearly established right. … circumstances as denials of qualified immunity.

Elder v. Holloway

984 F.2d 991 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 27, 1993

Harlow shifted the inquiry in qualified immunity cases from the subjective good faith of the government officials to the objective reasonableness of their conduct in light of clearly established law. … The Court is merely restating its holding by emphasizing that to defeat a qualified immunity claim there must be an identity between the sued-on right and the clearly established right.

Thomas v. Independence Township

463 F.3d 285 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 14, 2006

plaintiff complains violated clearly established law." … Thus, "[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."

Daniel Simmonds v. Genesee County

682 F.3d 438 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 19, 2012

To satisfy the first Saucier prong and establish a constitutional violation to defeat the officers’ claim of qualified immunity, Simmonds “is obliged to present facts which if true would constitute a violation of clearly … the violation of the constitutional right was clearly established. 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Cuervo v. Sorenson

112 F.4th 1307 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 30, 2024

On appeal, Plaintiff contends the district court erred in dismissing her FAC on qualified immunity grounds. Defendants ask us to affirm the grant of qualified immunity. … We now examine the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. We conclude Defendants violated Plaintiff’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.

Melissa Hearring v. Karen Sliwowski

712 F.3d 275 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 27, 2013

clearly established.” … Dragovic, 576 F.3d 539, 544 (6th Cir. 2009) (addressing the clearly established prong first in the qualified-immunity analysis).

Ciolino v. Gikas

861 F.3d 296 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 28, 2017

Qualified Immunity Framework Qualified immunity protects public officials from § 1983 suits for damages if their actions "d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Ct. 1765, 1776 (2015) ("Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if 'clearly established' law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.").

Batiste v. City of Beaumont

421 F. Supp. 2d 1000 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 10, 2006

in reference to clearly-established law. … Consequently, the court must answer the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis (has plaintiff alleged violation of a clearly established federal right?) in the negative. As such, Lt.

Cocroft v. Smith

95 F. Supp. 3d 119 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 26, 2015

Whether Officer Smith Is Entitled To Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public employees “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Officer Smith argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the right to be free from a retaliatory arrest was not clearly established at the time.

Dukore v. District of Columbia

970 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 19, 2013

“The doctrine of 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 … Arresting the plaintiffs An officer making an arrest is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the seizure violates the Fourth Amendment.

Edward Sialoi v. City of San Diego

823 F.3d 1223 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 24, 2016

Whether the constitutional right was clearly established As with the three teenagers, the background circumstances on which the defendants rely to establish qualified immunity (the officers presence in a high-crime … Thus, Sandoval’s discussion of clearly established law applies equally here.

Calvin B. Champion v. Outlook Nashville, Inc., Debbie Miller

380 F.3d 893 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 19, 2004

Qualified immunity provides “that government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … The court held that the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity was not proper because the officers had violated Drummond’s clearly established rights. Id. at 1062.

Jason Carter v. Mark Ludwick

139 F.4th 982 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 12, 2025

On count two, evidence concealment in violation of due process, the court granted qualified immunity because it was an “entirely novel claim” that was not clearly established. … Carter’s argument does not survive the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Sayed v. Virginia

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 31, 2018

Sayed fails to allege that Defendants violated his clearly established constitutional rights.” Id. at 57. But the argument that followed did not address qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity and Heck are analytically distinct doctrines: qualified immunity asks whether a defendant violated a constitutional or statutory right that was clearly established, Thomas, 765 F.3d at 1194; Heck evaluates

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.

Krainski v. Nevada Ex Rel. Board of Regents

616 F.3d 963 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 2, 2010

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … As we have previously noted, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects state actors when the constitutional right at issue was not “clearly established” at the time of the actions at issue.

Banks v. Herbrich

90 F.4th 407 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 3, 2024

The district court denied DFPS’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that its employees were not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated clearly established law by removing R.B. … immunity analysis asks whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the misconduct.

Siegert v. Gilley

500 U.S. 226 · Supreme Court of the United States · May 23, 1991

Once a defendant pleads a defense of qualified immunity, “[o]n summary judgment, the judge appropriately may determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action … This case demonstrates the desirability of this approach to a claim of immunity, for Siegert failed not only to allege the violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of Gilley’s actions,

Weatherford v. State

203 Ariz. 313 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Sep 10, 2002

secured by the Constitution and laws.... ” ¶ 23 To prevail on such claims, a plaintiff must overcome a qualified immunity defense by proving: (1) the defendants violated one of the plaintiffs clearly established rights; … Youngberg arguably reaches the constitutional right Weatherford asserts to be clearly established. ¶ 27 Moreover, Weatherford points out that decisions from eight federal courts support the assertion of a clearly established

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.