Case law

Wilson v. Kittoe

229 F. Supp. 2d 520 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Nov 7, 2002

Clearly Established The Fourth Amendment right to be free from arrest in the absence of probable cause is clearly established. See Henderson, 223 F.3d at 273 . … But, “if the test of ‘clearly established law' were to be applied at this level of generality, ... plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity ... into a rule of virtually unqualified liability.”

Lawrenz v. James

852 F. Supp. 986 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 6, 1994

Thus, if the applicable law was not clearly established, or if the law was clearly established and Defendant James did not violate that law in terminating Plaintiff, he is entitled to qualified immunity. … CONCLUSION Defendant James is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law in terminating Plaintiff.

Michael Charles Ward v. Dennis Dyke Fred Christians Robert J. Mayer Sherry Burt, Dan Bolden Donald Houseworth Robert Brown, Jr. David Haskell, Warden

58 F.3d 271 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 29, 1995

Defendants contend that Ward has failed to allege the violation of a clearly established right. … Therefore, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 4 IV. For the reasons set forth above, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. 1 .

Ralston v. Cannon

884 F.3d 1060 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 13, 2018

The district court denied Cannon’s request for qualified immunity. … Procedural Background Cannon filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming he was entitled to qualified immunity. 2 He asserted that to establish a violation of the Free Exercise Clause, Ralston “must show that his

Marwan Mahajni v. Vu Do

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 13, 2026

On the immunity issues, it denied qualified immunity to Deputy Do, ruling that United States ex rel. Tobe was an anal- ogous case and clearly established that Deputy Do’s conduct violated Mr. … Deputy Woida is entitled to qualified immunity for a sec- ond reason—there’s no clearly established law that says that a bailiff who fails to stop someone else from making an im- proper statement to a juror violates a defendant

William C. Powell v. Thomas J. Mikulecky, George Oates, Ruth Stephens and Wendall Gilliam

891 F.2d 1454 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 15, 1989

The test for qualified immunity is whether defendants violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Once a defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity as a defense to an action, “[t]he plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was clearly established.”

Estate of Bleck ex rel. Churchill v. Martinez

383 P.3d 39 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2014

’s motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. … On appeal, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the Fourth Amendment claim against Officer Martinez, concluding that he could not be found to have violated clearly established Fourth

Baptiste v. Griffin

District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 31, 2019

Therefore, a qualified immunity analysis is not necessary. … violate any clearly established right of Plaintiff.

Lojuk v. Johnson

770 F.2d 619 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 8, 1985

and qualified immunity. … Plaintiff argued in the alternative that even if defendants had not violated clearly established constitutional rights, they should be denied qualified immunity because they had violated a state administrative regulation.

Tommy D. Hopkins v. John L. Saunders, Kyle Vickers, Charles Ausfahl, Roy Temple, Beth M. Wheeler

93 F.3d 522 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 23, 1996

Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are generally immune from suit in performing discretionary duties if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The district court determined, however, that the right to such a hearing was clearly established by section 105.055 and thus denied the officials qualified immunity. We disagree.

Murray v. Poani

980 N.E.2d 1275 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 14, 2012

Qualified Immunity ¶ 33 Defendants contend if we conclude the trial court erred in determining no issue of material fact exists, we should hold plaintiffs’ claims are barred by qualified immunity. ¶ 34 … the constitutional right was clearly established.

Soscia Holdings, LLC v. P State of Rhode Island, et al.

2023 DNH 074 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jun 15, 2023

Qualified immunity applies where: (1) a federal right was violated, and (2) “the 21 unlawfulness of the conduct was clearly established at the time.” … Courts may begin the qualified immunity analysis by considering the clearly established prong. Id.

Farid v. Ellen

593 F.3d 233 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 28, 2010

For qualified immunity purposes, however, we must more precisely define the rights at issue, and only then determine whether they were “clearly established.” … For qualified immunity purposes, however, there is a separate question, which is whether the right violated by this conduct was clearly established.

Linda Sexton v. Thomas Cernuto

18 F.4th 177 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 8, 2021

Qualified immunity “shields government officials from ‘liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 2 The district … The qualified immunity analysis has two parts.

McCue v. City of Bangor Maine

838 F.3d 55 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 26, 2016

Because qualified immunity is "an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability," id. … Here, we focus on the "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Estate of Lopez v. Gelhaus

149 F. Supp. 3d 1154 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 20, 2016

The defense 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 … Based on the review of the cases above, the court finds *1165 that it was clearly established, and thus, qualified immunity does not shield Gelhaus from liability.

Southern California Rapid Transit District v. Superior Court

30 Cal. App. 4th 713 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1994

They dismiss defendants’ argument that the court failed to rule on their qualified immunity defense. … However, the qualified immunity under federal law upon which the defendants rely here does not apply if their actions violated a clearly established *731 statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person should

Omar Paez v. Claudia Mulvey

915 F.3d 1276 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 8, 2019

The arresting officer would be entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff establishes that “(1) [she] violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of [her] conduct was ‘clearly … Since there was no Fourth Amendment violation, much less a clearly established Fourth Amendment violation, Breeden and Sullivan are entitled to qualified immunity as well.

Mumford v. Zieba

788 F. Supp. 987 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 1992

Finally, Judge Zieba argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity from Mumford’s damages claims because the law did not clearly establish whether Mumford could be discharged based on his political affiliations. … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY In his motion for summary judgment, Judge Zieba contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity from Mumford’s claim for damages because the law did not clearly establish whether Mumford could be terminated

District of Columbia v. Jackson

810 A.2d 388 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 14, 2002

that the officers acted beyond the reach of qualified immunity protection). … That "general proposition,” the.Supreme Court reiterated in Saucier, "is not enough” to resolve the immunity question; instead "the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been clearly established in a more