Case law

Yeasin v. Durham

224 F. Supp. 3d 1194 · District Court, D. Kansas · Dec 1, 2016

plaintiff shows (1) the defendant’s violation of a constitutional right; and (2) that the right the official violated was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. 35 Accordingly, the qualified immunity … immunity from a claim of a First Amendment violation as such rights were not clearly established); Bell v.

Erin Lincoln v. City of Colleyville, Texas

887 F.3d 190 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 5, 2018

“[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time. … It follows that these officers—Meeks, Scott, and Barnes—similarly were not bound by any such clearly established law. The district court correctly granted these officers qualified immunity.

Amanda Reich v. City of Elizabethtown, Ky.

945 F.3d 968 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 19, 2019

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … This brings me to the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis—clearly established law.

Dominique Ramsey v. David Rivard

110 F.4th 860 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 1, 2024

Rivard argues that qualified immunity bars the plaintiffs’ unduly suggestive identification claim because they cannot show that Rivard’s actions violated their clearly established rights. (Appellant Br. 49.) … First, Rivard gains no immunity for violations of clearly established law by following the prosecutor’s advice. See Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 495 (1991).

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.

Shemtov Michtavi v. William Scism

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 14, 2015

Appellants appeal that order, and we conclude that they are entitled to qualified immunity because a prisoner’s right to treatment of retrograde ejaculation, infertility, or erectile dysfunction is not clearly established … She also concluded that the Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because Eighth Amendment jurisprudence clearly establishes that prison officials may not be indifferent to a serious medical need.

Greenwood v. New York

163 F.3d 119 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 11, 1998

. § 1983 ; it did so on the ground that the officials had qualified immunity. 1 We disagree with the court’s conclusion that Greenwood’s property right in his clinical staff privileges was not *121 clearly established and … “Even defendants who violate [clearly established] constitutional rights enjoy a qualified immunity that protects them from liability for damages unless it is further demonstrated that their conduct was unreasonable under

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.

Baker v. Schwarb

40 F. Supp. 3d 881 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 19, 2014

Defendants did not violate any of Plaintiffs’ clearly established rights under the Fourth Amendment and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. B. … , that right was not clearly established.

Kenneth Harold Swipies v. Frank Kofka

348 F.3d 701 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 3, 2003

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. See Harlow v. … We review the denial of a summary judgment motion claiming qualified immunity only to the extent the denial turns on an issue of law. See Behrens v.

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.

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

Kely Wilkins, Individually and as the Successor in Interest to Decedent William Alberto Wilkins William Alberto Wilkins, Individually the Estate of William Wilkins William Randolph Wilkins, a Minor, by and Through His Guardian Ad Litem, Kely Wilkins Fernando Wilkins, Individually Josefina Wilkins, Individually v. City of Oakland v. Tim Scarrott, Individually, and in His Official Capacity as a Police Officer for the City of Oakland Andrew Koponen, Individually, and in His Official Capacity as a Police Officer for the City of Oakland

350 F.3d 949 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 20, 2003

This general evaluation of the constitutionality of the alleged conduct, however, is not sufficient; we must also determine whether the actions alleged violate a clearly established constitutional right, where `clearly established … Even applying the step-by-step qualified immunity analysis outlined in Saucier, there is no question whether the officers' actions in this case violated clearly established law. They did.

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.

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.

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.

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.

St. Vrain Valley School District RE-1J v. Loveland Ex Rel. Loveland

395 P.3d 751 · Supreme Court of Colorado · May 22, 2017

We then assess whether the Lovelands have alleged facts sufficient to establish that the zip line was a dangerous condition, thereby depriving the District of immunity from suit here. … Even so, this is an argument about the design of the playground, which section 24-10-103(1.3) clearly prohibits.

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.

Aviles v. Department of the Army

666 F. Supp. 2d 224 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 8, 2009

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 . … violated that clearly established constitutional right.”