Case law

Pierson v. Gondles

693 F. Supp. 408 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Aug 11, 1988

Defendants raise the defense of qualified immunity on the grounds that it was not clearly established that the personnel actions taken by the Sheriff would violate the deputies’ constitutional rights. … For the purposes of qualified immunity, it would not have been "clearly established” that the plaintiffs would be entitled to any procedural protections.

Hearring v. Sliwowski

872 F. Supp. 2d 647 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jan 26, 2012

Our Circuit’s clearly established case law on this issue put the school and its employees on notice that this search was unconstitutional, so defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity protection. … to qualified immunity. 4.

Notariano v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board

266 F. Supp. 3d 919 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jul 17, 2017

allegations are sufficient, Plaintiff has failed to plead a violation of any clearly established constitutional right. … “[I]f the pleadings on their face show an unreasonable violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the defense of qualified immunity will not sustain a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).” 26 “[A] plaintiff

Terrence Hammock v. Gail Watts

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 23, 2025

Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity if Hammock alleged a deprivation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of Defendants’ alleged conduct. … One would be hard-pressed to find a more clearly established constitutional violation than the one before us here.

Warney v. City of Rochester

536 F. Supp. 2d 285 · District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 11, 2008

are covered by qualified immunity. … LEXIS 18002 (N.D.Ill.2002) (finding that a due process right to disclosure of post-conviction exculpatory evidence exists, but granting qualified immunity because the right was not “clearly established” in 1997), aff'd in

Charles McManemy v. Bruce Tierney

970 F.3d 1034 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 17, 2020

In an appeal from a summary-judgment ruling on qualified immunity, we typically credit the plaintiff’s version of the facts. See id. at 378. … See Blazek, 761 F.3d at 925 (holding that jerking a non-resisting suspect from the floor to his bed after he was handcuffed and posed no threat violated clearly established law); Krout, 583 F.3d at 566 (“It was clearly established

Herbert Whitlock v. Charles Bruegge

682 F.3d 567 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 30, 2012

Patchman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976), or in the alterna- tive, that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any of the plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights. See Harlow v. … An official is entitled to qualified immunity for conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818.

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.

Looney v. Black

702 F.3d 701 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 21, 2012

To determine whether Black is entitled to qualified immunity as to Looney’s procedural due process claim, we must determine also whether the constitutionally protected property right was “clearly established.” 2 Reichle, … To defeat an assertion of qualified immunity, an employee’s constitutional right to free speech must also be “clearly established” under the law. Reichle, 132 S.Ct. at 2093 .

Miles v. Rich

576 F. App'x 394 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 31, 2014

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials acting within their discretionary authority are immune from civil liability for damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights … The test for qualified immunity is twofold: (1) “whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right;” and (2) “whether the defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light

Deavers v. Vasquez

57 F. Supp. 3d 599 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Nov 5, 2014

DISCUSSION “Qualified immunity protects government officials who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry v. … Greene, 593 F.3d 348, 358 (4th Cir.2010). *607 “The Supreme Court has cautioned against interpreting clearly established law too generally for féar of allowing plaintiffs ‘to convert the rule of qualified immunity ... into

Facey v. Dickhaut

892 F. Supp. 2d 347 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 25, 2012

Qualified Immunity The defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff has not alleged a violation of clearly established law. … The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires that the right have been clearly established at the time that it was allegedly violated. See Feliciano-Hernandez, 663 F.3d at 532 .

Stamm v. Cnty. of Cheyenne

326 F. Supp. 3d 832 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Jun 11, 2018

12 because there was no clearly established law to alert the officers that their allegedly unlawful searches would deprive Plaintiffs of their Fourth Amendment rights. 13 "To avoid qualified immunity, the asserted rights … For purposes of analyzing the individual Defendants' qualified immunity defense, the court finds this right to confidentiality was clearly established at the time of their alleged misconduct.

Hunter v. Illinois Department of Corrections

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 28, 2023

Meeks is not entitled to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. … clearly established at the time of the defendant’s misconduct).

Wallace v. Jackson

667 F. Supp. 2d 1267 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 28, 2009

On the other hand, if the law was not clearly established at the time of the offense, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 807 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 ; Stewart v. … was clearly established at the time.

Lee v. Brown

232 N.J. 114 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 21, 2018

The panel held that they were entitled only to qualified immunity. … The TCA effectuates the Legislature's intent to establish immunity for government action as the rule and liability as the exception.

Edward Shaw v. City of Selma

884 F.3d 1093 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 7, 2018

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Instead of clearly establishing the law against Williams, binding precedent clearly establishes it in his favor. See Singletary v.

Gary T. Mitchell v. Bernie C. Thompson

18 F.3d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 7, 1994

Analysis The issue here presented is one which we are all too familiar — whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity from a civil suit because the law was not clearly established at the time of his alleged … Under the prevailing precedent, unless the law is clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Alford v. Haner

333 F.3d 972 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 23, 2003

Defendants claimed they were entitled to qualified immunity and had probable cause for the arrest. … The first question under the two-part inquiry for determining whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity is whether the “law governing the official’s conduct [was] clearly established.” Act-Up!/Portland v.

Marlowe v. LeBlanc

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 10, 2022

The first question is (a) whether Stewart violated a clearly established right. … See, e.g., Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011) (explaining qualified immunity applies “unless,” among other things, the defendant violated a “right [that] was clearly established at the time of the challenged