Case law

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."

Elmer Pace and Linda Pace v. City of Des Moines, Iowa, and Brian Danner

201 F.3d 1050 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 13, 2000

of clearly established law.” … have violated plaintiffs clearly established right.”

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).

Thompson v. Farmer

945 F. Supp. 109 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 28, 1996

Taken together Mitchell and Johnson establish a continuum along which the court makes qualified immunity decisions. … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 , 111 S.Ct. 1789 , 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991) (dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity proper where plaintiff’s complaint did not allege a clearly established’ legal norm or its violation).

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.

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.

Clarence Belton, Jr. v. Heather Loveridge

129 F.4th 271 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 26, 2025

And the district court did not apply the well-established analysis for determining Loveridge’s qualified immunity, vel non. … Under the well-established analysis, Officer Loveridge would be entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim unless (1) she violated a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ball v. Cook County School District

889 F. Supp. 492 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jun 13, 1995

For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government … Government actors performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil trials for money damages and may not be held liable in their individual capacity if their conduct violates no clearly established

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.

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,

Walsh v. Franco

849 F.2d 66 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 6, 1988

Qualified or “good faith” immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In Robison , we outlined three ways in which an official could establish his entitlement to qualified immunity.

Woodward v. City of Worland

977 F.2d 1392 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 19, 1992

The Supervisors therefore should have been granted qualified immunity on this claim because their conduct did not violate any clearly established law constituting constructive discharge. 2. … ’s constructive discharge claim, but they have not established qualified immunity as to the constructive discharge claims of Molina and DeSomber; Williams, Sackett and *1405 Mitchell are entitled to qualified immunity on

Zar v. Payne

760 F. Supp. 2d 779 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 12, 2011

Qualified Immunity The Defendants argue that the doctrine of qualified immunity forecloses the Plaintiffs claims for warrantless entry into her home and use of excessive force. … According to the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established