Case law

Clark v. Valletta

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 6, 2025

“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as the right to be free from” a given constitutional injury. Id. … CONCLUSION In sum, the district court improperly denied qualified immunity to Defendants because there is no clearly established right to specific gender-dysphoria treatments.

Michalik v. Hermann

422 F.3d 252 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 18, 2005

Evaluating qualified immunity is a two-step process. First, we determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. See Siegert v. … An officer need only plead his good faith, which then shifts the burden to the plaintiff, who must rebut the defense by establishing that the officer’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law. Id.

Denieva v. Reyes

966 F.2d 480 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 5, 1992

by qualified immunity. … Did DeNieva Identify a Specific Right, and Was it Clearly Established? 21 We can consider the first two prongs of the Romero test together, as both raise the question of Reyes' violation of a clearly established right.

Pierce v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections

284 F. Supp. 2d 811 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 28, 2003

Of course, the qualified immunity inquiry asks whether the constitutional right advocated by the plaintiff is clearly established, not whether a defendant’s conduct is not clearly established. … The test for whether a right is clearly established was set out by the Supreme Court: “[C]learly established rights, for purpose of qualified immunity, are ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Inouye v. Kemna

504 F.3d 705 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 2007

Qualified immunity from civil suit is available to government officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The district court suggests that Kerr did not provide adequate notice because the court there granted qualified immunity, holding that the law was not yet clearly established.

De Smet v. Snyder

653 F. Supp. 797 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Feb 12, 1987

The plaintiffs, in turn, must overcome the immunity defense by showing that their allegations, if true, did violate constitutional rights clearly established at the time. … of clearly established constitutional rights.

Gregory May v. Michael F. Sheahan

226 F.3d 876 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 8, 2000

Ill Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to a qualified immunity that shields them from damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … were clearly established at the time in question.

Carico v. Benton, Ireland, & Stovall

68 F. App'x 632 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 2003

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … clearly established.

Moran v. State Of Washington

147 F.3d 839 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 2, 1998

established" to preclude qualified immunity under Harlow and its progeny. … established" to defeat Senn's assertion of qualified immunity.

Clark v. Coleman

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 24, 2020

To evaluate qualified immunity claims, the Fourth Circuit has adopted a two-step analysis: (1) Whether a clearly established right has been violated, and (2) whether a reasonable person in the officer’s position “would … Nev. 2018) (“And because it is clearly established that a citizen has the First Amendment right to criticize officers, even with profanity, Dennett is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.”).

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.

Sims Ex Rel. Sims v. Forehand

112 F. Supp. 2d 1260 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 5, 2000

If a question of law is unsettled, it is not clearly established, and, thus, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. See Daniel v. Taylor, 808 F.2d 1401, 1403 (11th Cir.1986). … For another example of a case that found the "clearly established” requirement satisfied and denied qualified immunity without citing a previous case with similar facts, see Powell v. M.C.

Matrisciano v. Randle

569 F.3d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 26, 2009

entitled to qualified immunity. … Because the violation of a constitutional right was not clearly established at the relevant time, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Grendell v. Gillway

974 F. Supp. 46 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 11, 1997

immunity and, consequently, the question of whether this right was clearly established at the time Gillway acted. … qualified immunity.

Robinson v. City of San Diego

954 F. Supp. 2d 1010 · District Court, S.D. California · May 28, 2013

clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue. … Specific binding precedent is not required to show that a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.

Saleem Bashir v. Rockdale County, Georgia

445 F.3d 1323 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 14, 2006

Thus, Bashir has satisfied the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis by demonstrating that his warrantless arrest was unlawful. 2. Clearly Established Law. … The next question we address in the qualified immunity analysis is whether the constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation.

Janice Akins v. Fulton County, Georgia

420 F.3d 1293 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 2005

Clearly Established Law The final step in the qualified immunity inquiry is determining whether the law was clearly established so as to put Gates on notice that his behavior was a violation. … We based our primary holding on the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test.

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."

Walker v. Davis

643 F. Supp. 2d 921 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Jul 23, 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 rights of which a reasonable person … For purposes of qualified immunity, the Court must also determine whether this right to be free from unreasonable seizures was clearly established at the time of pursuit.

Vines v. City of Dallas, Tex.

851 F. Supp. 254 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 28, 1994

Defendant Hart has asserted the defense of qualified immunity to Plaintiffs claim. In determining whether Defendant Hart has established her defense of qualified immunity, the Court uses a two-prong analysis. … Defendant Hart has asserted the defense of qualified immunity to Plaintiffs claim. Therefore, the Court must decide whether Hart violated a clearly established right of the Plaintiff. The Court finds that Hart did not.