Case law

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.

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

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.

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

Peppers v. Coates

694 F. Supp. 1562 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 30, 1988

If plaintiff’s allegations prove true, then Cozart has violated clearly established constitutional rights and he is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Therefore, Ewing is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Stevens v. Sanpete County

640 F. Supp. 376 · District Court, D. Utah · Jan 9, 1986

Reading Harlow literally, it has said that the proper inquiry for determining qualified immunity is simply whether the constitution’s probable cause requirement was clearly established. … Since the probable cause requirement is clearly established, one who makes an arrest without probable cause can never have qualified immunity.

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.

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.

Mathis v. Bess

767 F. Supp. 558 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 15, 1991

To defeat qualified immunity, the rights that plaintiffs assert were violated must have been clearly established in a “particularized sense.” P.C. v. McLaughlin, 913 F.2d 1033, 1039 (2d Cir.1990). … Under these circumstances, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects the stenographers’ discretion.

Mario Cavin v. Mich. Dep't of Corr.

927 F.3d 455 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 17, 2019

Qualified immunity protects those officials whose “conduct does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … (2) If so, was that right clearly established?

WVDHHR v. Virginia Prince

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 21, 2019

In the proceedings below and on appeal, the Guardians assert that the DHHR Petitioners are precluded from relying on qualified immunity protections because the DHHR Petitioners violated a clearly established right. … established constitutional or statutory right, and no basis for piercing the DHHR Petitioners’ qualified immunity exists.

Oliver v. Arnold

19 F.4th 843 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 15, 2021

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a § 1983 plaintiff must state not only a constitutional violation, but a “clearly established” one. … Rejecting a 3 For the same reasons, the teacher should at a minimum have received qualified immunity because he did not violate any clearly established law.

J.M. v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs.

286 F. Supp. 3d 745 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Dec 13, 2017

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The Court will begin with the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis-whether the rights Plaintiff claims the Individual Defendants violated were clearly established at the time of their actions.

Theresa Sheets Theresa Sheets, as the Administrator for the Estate of Tiffany Jean Montgomery, Deceased v. Sergeant Howard Mullins

287 F.3d 581 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 25, 2002

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does “not violate clearly established … The second point of analysis is whether a public official’s conduct violated clearly established federal rights.

Merring v. City of Carbondale, Pennsylvania

558 F. Supp. 2d 540 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2008

Qualified immunity does not apply where state officials violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wright v. … If it was, the law regarding entry into a house to make an arrest is clearly established, and qualified immunity would not apply in the instant case.

Finch v. City of New York

591 F. Supp. 2d 349 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 19, 2008

This Court held, inter alia, that any right to a prompt administrative hearing was not clearly established, entitling the individual defendants to qualified immunity. 4 *354 B. … Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability if the officials’ conduct “ ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Alamo Workforce Development, Inc. v. Vann

21 S.W.3d 428 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · May 2, 2000

Clearly this statutorily-defined structure establishes that work *433 force boards act as arms of the State and carry out the policies established by the Texas Workforce Commission. … This evidence is consistent with statutory provisions which establish service delivery areas for qualifying localities. See 29 U.S.C.A. § 1511 (West 1999).

Cynthia Bloch and Thomas Bloch v. Sheriff L. John Ribar

156 F.3d 673 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 21, 1998

On appeal, the Blochs claim that the district court erred by granting qualified immunity to Ribar. They argue that the right to criticize a public official is a clearly established right under the First Amendment. … defense of qualified immunity.”

Blount-Yeye

District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 12, 2025

Plaintiff can show qualified immunity is not appropriate by establishing “(1) the defendants violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … “Generally speaking, it is proper to grant a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds when the complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Corbitt v.

England v. Hendricks

880 F.2d 281 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 21, 1989

On the facts before us, then, Hendricks and Groll would be entitled to qualified immunity if it was not clearly established under Utah law at the time of their actions that a store owner could not be charged under the aiding … Since the decision to charge did not violate clearly established law at the time of the officers’ actions, they are immune from suit.