Case law

Soto v. Bzdel

214 F. Supp. 2d 69 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 26, 2002

was clearly established at the time of the [official’s] alleged violation.” … If courts deciding § 1983 suits on the basis of qualified immunity were to tackle the difficult substantive law, then the law would become 'clearly established' so that officers presented with similar factual scenarios in

Ramirez v. Webb

835 F.2d 1153 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 23, 1987

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court established that officials are denied qualified immunity only when their alleged acts violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional … Accordingly, defendant INS agents have qualified immunity unless plaintiffs’ “rights were so clearly established when the acts were committed that any officer in the defendant’s position, measured objectively, would have

Thomas Wilkinson, Benjamin Wilkinson, by Next Friend Thomas Wilkinson and Jonathan Wiegand v. Caroline S. Russell, James Adams and Gerald Jeffords

182 F.3d 89 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 17, 1999

Under the Vermont qualified immunity standard, then, Russell is entitled to qualified immunity in her communications with Shanley unless Russell reasonably should have known that those communications violated clearly established … In the event that this threshold determination reveals a possible constitutional violation, “ ‘[a] qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it

Harris County, Texas G. Young D. Gehring and J. Cavitt v. Shirley Nagel, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Joel Don Casey

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Aug 25, 2011

Identification of the clearly established law is not a question of fact to be established by evidence. … This would not be qualified immunity, but absolute immunity.

Farrington v. Poole

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 6, 2026

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages if ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Second, the doctrine of qualified immunity required the district court to apply only clearly established law to the defendants’ conduct.

Archer v. Chisholm

188 F. Supp. 3d 866 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · May 26, 2016

She is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the plaintiff plausibly pleads that she violated a constitutional right, and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Qualified immunity—validity of warrant Turning to qualified immunity, again, to overcome qualified immunity the plaintiff must plausibly allege that the defendants violated a constitutional right, and that the right was clearly

Parker v. Board Of Regents Of Tulsa Junior College

981 F.2d 1159 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 17, 1992

Id.; Patrick, 953 F.2d at 1243 . 10 Once a defendant asserts qualified immunity, "[t]he plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was clearly established." … Accordingly, they maintain that plaintiff's action is barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. 14 To determine whether plaintiff's action is barred by qualified immunity, we first consider whether she was deprived of

African Trade & Information Center, Inc., Mohamoud D. Ahmed, and Alan W. Gates v. James F. Abromaitis

294 F.3d 355 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 23, 2002

The First Amendment Claim The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Even if a district court decision could “establish” a right for the purpose of the qualified immunity inquiry, A.F.C.

Phyllis J. May v. City of Nahunta, Georgia

846 F.3d 1320 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 19, 2017

In evaluating a government actor’s entitlement to qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has developed an objective-reasonableness test wherein “the official’s actions must be evaluated against ‘clearly established law,’ … Second, we determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of alleged conduct. Id.

Thompson v. Grida

656 F.3d 365 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 8, 2011

Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001) (“The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation … Appellants cite a number of cases to support their qualified immunity argument that the right not to be arrested in the circumstances presented in this case is not clearly established.

Hall v. Thomas

190 F.3d 693 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 29, 1999

Finally, the district court held that even if the ADA did apply to prisons, the defendants would be qualifiedly immune from suit thereunder because Hall’s rights under the ADA were not clearly established at the time of … not clearly established prior to Yeskey.

Picariello v. Commonwealth

54 Pa. Commw. 252 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 1980

However, plaintiff’s complaint clearly contradicts that claim, by alleging that the Secretary acted as a Commonwealth agent. 6 The guidelines established in DuBree v. … Defendant shall file an answer, possibly with new matter addressing the issue of qualified official immunity, if desired.

Sheryl J. Howard v. Jan Dickerson, and Charles Milton, Keith Purdue

34 F.3d 978 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 7, 1994

The Martin court upheld the denial of qualified immunity because Garcia clearly established pretrial detainees share the same protection from deliberate indifference to serious medical needs as convicted inmates. … When a defendant raises the issue of qualified immunity on a summary judgment motion, the plaintiff must demonstrate the alleged conduct constituted a violation of law and the law was clearly established at the time of the

Ruttenberg v. Jones

464 F. Supp. 2d 536 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Dec 13, 2006

Thus, a defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity must be resolved “at the earliest possible stage in litigation.” Id. The Supreme Court has established a two-part qualified immunity inquiry. … Meeker, 415 F.3d at 320 ("Only if a plaintiff alleges the violation of a clearly established constitutional right does his complaint survive a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds.”).

Reilly v. Vadlamudi

680 F.3d 617 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 25, 2012

Qualified immunity protects state officials, including prison employees, so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … In resolving qualified immunity claims, we ask whether: (1) the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, show a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) the right at issue was “clearly established” at the

Suboh v. District Attorney's Office

298 F.3d 81 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 1, 2002

The district court then concluded that Murphy was not protected by qualified immunity because Suboh's claim "lies at the core" of a clearly established right to familial integrity, id. at 140, and that, as the case was … not clearly established at the time.

Baptiste v. MacDonald, et al.

2017 DNH 140 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jul 17, 2017

Baptiste’s Objection Based on the facts alleged in the complaint and the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the court concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because there was no case that established … More importantly, in the context of qualified immunity from liability for an alleged constitutional violation, corrections officers are protected unless they violated an inmate’s clearly established 2 Baptiste mistakenly

Jennings v. Patton

644 F.3d 297 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 17, 2011

B The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil, damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … ; and (2) whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct. 3 Id. at 815-16 (citing Saucier v.

95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9002, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15,739 Sinaloa Lake Owners Association Robert A. Ain Diantha Ain Leonard Bellenson Ann Bellenson v. City of Simi Valley, and Roger Stephenson James Doody Vernon H. Persson David Jacinto James E. Ley Howard McEwan of the Estate of Sheldon McEwan

70 F.3d 1095 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 30, 1995

were not in dispute. 10 Once a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity, "the district court must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles governing the conduct in question, the officer objectively … that the law was clearly established, Doody was nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because "a reasonable dam safety engineering official, similarly situated, could have believed breaching the dam was lawful."

Sudler v. City of New York

689 F.3d 159 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 7, 2012

Qualified Immunity 4 Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability where the 5 officials’ conduct was not in violation of a “clearly established” constitutional right. 6 See, e.g., Doninger … it is “‘clearly established’ in the qualified immunity context, which governs the conduct 18 of government officials who are likely neither lawyers nor legal scholars.” 616 F.3d 19 100, 106 (2d Cir. 2010).