Case law

MCCRIMMON v. JOHNSON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 30, 2022

Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity because settled law does not clearly establish that four instances of the opening of legal mail over a twenty-one-month period amounts to a pattern or practice … There is a two-step inquiry into whether qualified immunity applies: (1) whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional or federal right; and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established.

Barbara Bays v. Montmorency Cty., Mich.

874 F.3d 264 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 20, 2017

Because a triable issue of fact remains over whether Sigler violated Shane’s clearly established Fourteenth Amendment right to sufficient treatment for a serious medical problem, we affirm the district court’s qualified- … In a qualified-immunity case, we ask two questions: Did the officer violate the injured party’s constitutional rights? If so, was the right clearly established at the time? Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009).

Richard Fields v. City of Philadelphia

862 F.3d 353 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 7, 2017

Katz, the Supreme Court held that courts must determine whether a constitutional right existed before deciding if it had been “clearly established” such that defendants would not be entitled to qualified immunity. 533 U.S … Government actors are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violated a constitutional right “so clearly established *361 that ‘every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right

Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 3, 2026

in question . . . was clearly established.” … were clearly established.

Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach

329 F.3d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 19, 2003

He posits a novel twist to the “clearly established” inquiry, contending that because it is not clearly established that damages may be obtained under § 1983 for an unlawful traffic stop, qualified immunity should apply. … Rather, in determining whether qualified immunity is available, those cases merely inquire whether the right at issue was clearly established in law.

Morris v. Johnson

262 Ga. App. 182 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jul 8, 2003

“Government officials, including police officers, are entitled to immunity from personal liability under 42 USC § 1983 if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … S. 635, 640 (107 SC 3034, 97 LE2d 523) (1987). 5 The burden on the plaintiff to show a clearly established right is a *184 strenuous one. 6 And “if the law is not clearly established, the officer is entitled to summary judgment

Dickerson v. Mertz

547 N.W.2d 208 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Apr 17, 1996

agents] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known....” … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640-41 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039-40 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523, 531-32 (1987) (concluding federal bureau of investigation agent is entitled to qualified immunity from money damages lawsuit if he can establish

Lybrook v. Members of the Farmington Municipal Schools Board of Education

232 F.3d 1334 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 27, 2000

When qualified immunity is raised in a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion, the plaintiff must carry the burden of establishing that the defendant violated clearly established law. Breidenbach v. … We held that Schuler’s free speech right under the First Amendment was sufficiently established that qualified immunity was not available.

Byrd v. Haas

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 19, 2020

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (finding that government officials sued in their individual capacity are entitled to seek qualified immunity unless their actions violated "clearly established statutory or … clearly established law.

J. Gilliam v. Kenneth Sealey

932 F.3d 216 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 30, 2019

Because Appellees have alleged facts sufficient to show that the officers violated their clearly established Fourth Amendment and due process rights, we affirm the district court's denial of qualified immunity. I. A. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for violations of constitutional rights so long as they could reasonably believe that their conduct did not violate clearly established law. Harlow v.

Williams v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

848 F.3d 549 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 9, 2017

If the right was not clearly established, our inquiry ends and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Was the Right Clearly Established?

Antoine Jones v. Steve Kirchner

835 F.3d 74 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 26, 2016

Qualified immunity depends upon the answers to two questions: (1) Did the officer’s conduct violate a constitutional or statutory right? If so, (2) was that right clearly established at the time of the violation? … Nevertheless, we agree with the district court that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, albeit for a different reason: It was not clearly established in Maryland in 2005 that the Fourth Amendment prohibits

Farid v. Ellen

514 F. Supp. 2d 482 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 15, 2007

Thus, the qualified immunity defense is available, as a matter of law, to all defendants because the right was not clearly established. … All defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the defense of qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 7, 1993

The court framed the qualified immunity issue as being "whether minor school children suspected of being victims of child abuse had, [at the relevant time] a clearly established right to be free from questioning and visual … The court found no such clearly established right, and found, therefore that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and were therefore not liable.

Reynolds v. Powell

370 F.3d 1028 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 3, 2004

“In an action under section 1983, individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless it is demonstrated that their alleged conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … We also review the legal issues surrounding the grant of qualified immunity de novo. Id.

Franceski v. Plaquemines Parish School Board

602 F. Supp. 691 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Feb 7, 1985

rights must show that these rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue, in order to overcome a defendant official’s qualified immunity. … Plaintiff has failed to assert a clearly established right which was violated. In this regard, the instant case is indistinguishable from Davis v. Scherer, supra, which is dispositive on the issue of qualified immunity.

Hunt v. Sapien

480 F. Supp. 2d 1271 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 29, 2007

No Clearly Established Law Even if Mr. … Hunt had established a constitutional violation sufficient to overcome the first prong of qualified immunity, he has not shown that the right was clearly established at the time he was placed in administrative segregation

Martínez-Rodríguez v. Guevara

551 F. Supp. 2d 142 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Nov 29, 2007

A three-step process exists for evaluating qualified immunity claims: 1) whether the claimant has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right; 2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the … are entitled to qualified immunity.

Walker v. White

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 27, 2015

The district court dismissed on the ground that the State Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (“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

Nelson v. Silverman

888 F. Supp. 1041 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 6, 1995

The Bothke court merely assumed that there is a clearly established right of freedom from abusive tax collection activities for the purposes of dealing with a qualified immunity issue. … A defendant would be immune from suit if he could establish that his actions were objectively reasonable by reference to clearly established law. Harlow v.