Case law

Darrin Gruenberg v. Debra Gempeler

697 F.3d 573 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 26, 2012

To defeat a claim of qualified immunity, Gruenberg must show that the defendants violated a constitutional right and demonstrate that the right in question was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Thus, when analyzing a qualified immunity defense, courts consider whether the alleged facts demonstrate a constitutional violation, and whether the constitu- tional right was clearly established. Pearson v.

Valdez v. Roybal

186 F. Supp. 3d 1197 · District Court, D. New Mexico · May 12, 2016

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis. … The Law Was Not Clearly Established and Roybal and Placencio are Entitled to Qualified Immunity.

Beatrice Luna v. Texas Department of Pub Sf

773 F.3d 712 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 19, 2014

Discussion The doctrine of qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions. . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Clearly Established Law Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, plaintiffs must show that Mullenix’s actions violated a constitutional right that was sufficiently clearly established.

Jesse Redmond v. Isaac Fulwood, Jr.

859 F.3d 11 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 9, 2017

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from suits for money damages unless a plaintiff shows both that (i) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (ii) that right was “clearly established … Fourth, Fulwood is entitled to qualified immunity for Redmond’s allegation of bias arising from the nature of his crime because there is no clearly established right for parole- eligible prisoners to be treated equally in

Mark Campbell v. Cheatham County Sheriff's Dep't

47 F.4th 468 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 29, 2022

Therefore, we turn to whether the right was clearly established. 3 An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity if he violates a constitutional right … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Sample v. Bailey

337 F. Supp. 2d 1012 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 24, 2004

The qualified immunity doctrine provides “that governmental officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … A “Clearly Established” Right? To overcome the bar of quali-fied immunity, a plaintiff must show that a right was clearly established in the law at the time the alleged violation occurred.

Caron Nazario v. Joe Gutierrez

103 F.4th 213 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 31, 2024

On the second prong of qualified immunity, i.e., the clearly established issue, we agree with the district court that Crocker is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct did not violate a clearly … The court, however, ruled that the Policemen were entitled to qualified immunity under its second prong, that is, the clearly established requirement.

Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am. v. Vullo

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 17, 2025

Vullo argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity, but the NRA maintains that she violated clearly established law prohibiting coercion or retaliation violative of the First Amendment. … But under the qualified immunity analysis, general pronouncements of law are not sufficient to "clearly establish" a right.

Ogborn v. City of Lancaster

124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 238 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 2002

The Individual Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Governmental Immunity. … This immunity provision bars the Ogborns’ claim for trespassing because the warrant clearly authorized entry onto the Property and into the structures located there.

Rodriguez v. Nazario

719 F. Supp. 52 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 31, 1989

relief; 4 that defendants have failed to establish that they perform discretionary functions which is a requisite for qualified immunity; and that defendants’ actions were violative of clearly established law and therefore … and has not been clearly established on this matter.

Barbara C. Ehrlich v. Town of Glastonbury, Joel White, James Kenny

348 F.3d 48 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 17, 2003

The Supreme Court’s prescribed inquiry Defendants begin and end their qualified immunity argument with the proposition that the allegedly infringed constitutional right is not “clearly established.” … Ehrlich has not proffered evidence demonstrating the violation of a “clearly-established right[ ] of which an ob *62 jectively reasonable official would have known,” the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and

Brown v. Benefield

757 F. Supp. 2d 1165 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 29, 2010

The Eleventh Circuit recognizes three ways that a right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes: (1) case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishes the constitutional right, (2) a broad statement … If this is not clearly established, then the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the case.

Paul Mollica v. James A. Volker

229 F.3d 366 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 6, 2000

For a constitutional right to be “clearly established” for purposes of determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would … whether the right is clearly established).

Roberts v. City of Forest Acres

902 F. Supp. 662 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Aug 21, 1995

not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The touchstone of qualified immunity is the “ ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the [officer’s] action assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Schlicher v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners

Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 6, 2006

The Supreme Court has explained the concept of a "clearly established" constitutional right in the context of a qualified immunity claim as follows: " '[C]learly established' for purposes of qualified immunity means … Because "it is well established that the qualified immunity doctrine does not apply to official capacity claims" (Ruffino v.

Waldon v. Borough of Upper Darby

77 F. Supp. 2d 655 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 1999

The officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if their conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of Plaintiffs, of which a reasonable officer would … A qualified immunity claim is ordinarily decided by first determining whether a violation of a constitutional or statutory right is alleged, and then next determining whether that right was clearly established and would have

Napier v. Town of Windham

187 F.3d 177 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 6, 1999

There are two prongs to the qualified immunity analysis. The first prong is whether the constitutional right in question was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See Swain v. … Finding that no such duty was clearly established at the time of the incident, we held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. See id. at 28.

Galvin v. Lloyd

663 F. Supp. 1572 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jul 13, 1987

The relevant language from Mitchell reads: "Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, the defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement … To some extent, the parties have already addressed the substance of the “clearly established” standard in their immunity briefs: the litigants may rely on those briefs if the defendants’ qualified immunity challenge arises

Gardetto v. Mason

854 F. Supp. 1520 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Jun 7, 1994

immunity, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s actions violated clearly established rights. … Finally, the Court also finds that this corpus of law was certainly clearly established at the time of the events in question such that the motion for qualified immunity on this claim must also be denied. iii.

McGrath v. Gillis

44 F.3d 567 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 6, 1995

“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” … . *570 In order to defeat a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege a cognizable violation of a constitutional right clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.