Case law

Mata Ex Rel. J.A.M v. City of Farmington

791 F. Supp. 2d 1118 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jun 13, 2011

Once the plaintiff has established the inference that the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, a qualified immunity defense generally fails. See Cannon v. … They argue that Mata thus cannot satisfy his burden under the qualified immunity test and show that Rahn’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Phillip Fry, Susan Fry v. Olin Melaragno, David W. Otto, Mark Barnes, Mark Pendery

939 F.2d 832 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 29, 1991

Therefore, [u]nless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.... … Nor do they suggest that Melaragno acted in a way which he should have known was clearly unlawful. Melar-agno is entitled to qualified immunity from suit.

Abdul Khan v. Newell Normand, Sheriff, et a

683 F.3d 192 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 1, 2012

Qualified immunity protects government officials from money damages unless a plaintiff shows: (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged … Courts “have discretion to decide which of the two prongs of qualified-immunity analysis to tackle first.” Id.

Kim Brown v. Muhlenberg Township

269 F.3d 205 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 11, 2001

IV. 65 Let me amplify my earlier analysis explaining the second prong -- the clearly established prong-- of the qualified immunity doctrine. … the clearly established element of the immunity doctrine.

Fabiano v. City of Palos Hills

336 Ill. App. 3d 635 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 25, 2002

Qualified Immunity Defendants further argue that they enjoy qualified immunity from section 1983 liability because, even if they in fact lacked probable cause to prosecute Sandra Fabiano, they reasonably believed that they … “But if a reasonable officer would not have believed that the person had committed a crime, then the officer, whatever he did or did not believe, is acting contrary to clearly established law and therefore has no immunity

Buonocore v. Harris

134 F.3d 245 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 14, 1998

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court held that when, as here, the law is clearly established, the qualified immunity defense “ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably … A public official who fails to follow legal advice obviously cannot rely on that advice to establish entitlement to qualified immunity.

Amanda Smith v. R. Ray

781 F.3d 95 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 18, 2015

The second prong of the qualified-immunity inquiry asks whether the right was clearly established at the time the violation occurred such … Supp. at 580 5 In arguing that the unconstitutionality of his conduct was not clearly established, Ray argues that it was not clearly established that the hair pulling by itself would constitute excessive force

Engleman v. Adkerson

District Court, N.D. Georgia · Mar 1, 2024

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Plaintiff devotes no section to her failure-to-intervene claim but simply says Adkerson is not entitled to qualified immunity because it is clearly established that a person cannot be arrested without a

Limone v. Condon

372 F.3d 39 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 14, 2004

Qualified immunity is a judge-made doctrine. … Having erected this straw man, the appellants then shred it: although Brady was decided prior to 1967, they assert that it was not clearly established then (indeed, it may not be clearly established today) that the

Moore v. Evans

124 N.C. App. 35 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 15, 1996

Generally, qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability for performing discretionary functions to the extent that such conduct “ ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … In order to establish the existence of an official’s right to the defense of qualified immunity, one must (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether that right was clearly established; and (

Garcia v. Montford Unit

District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 16, 2024

Motion on Qualified Immunity Defendant appeared in this case and asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity in her answer to the complaint. (Doc. 34). … .”’); see also Backe, 691 F.3d at 648 (explaining that “this court has established a careful procedure under which a district court may defer its qualified immunity ruling if further factual development is necessary to

Frank Snider, III v. Matthew Peters

752 F.3d 1149 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 30, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability and the burdens of litigation in a § 1983 action unless the official's conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable … ; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation."

Jerry Hollingsworth and Kenneth Anderson v. Kim Hackler, Individually and as Next Friend for C. H., a Minor, and Steve Hackler, Individually and as Next Friend for C. H., a Minor

Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · Dec 31, 2009

of qualified immunity shields an official performing discretionary functions from individual liability for civil damages under ' 1983 if the official = s A conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … = s conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. [18] A right is A clearly established @ when its contours are A sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is

Young v. Brighton School District 27J

325 P.3d 571 · Supreme Court of Colorado · May 19, 2014

Because governmental immunity established by the CGIA derogates Colorado's common law, we strictly construe the Act's immunity provisions, and as a logical corollary, we broadly construe its waiver provisions. … 10-106(1)(b)) and the waiver for a dangerous condition of a jail (section 24-10-106(1)(e)). 121 If the consideration of one waiver were intended to preclude the consideration of all other waivers, providing waivers that clearly

Vincent v. Annucci

63 F.4th 145 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 23, 2023

Fischer, 837 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2016), that because Annucci failed to make objectively reasonable efforts to comply with federal law that was clearly established by Earley I, he was not entitled to qualified immunity. … established.”24 In Vincent I, however, we made it clear that “[f]or a right to be ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity, it is sufficient if decisions of the Supreme Court or of the appropriate circuit

Boyer v. Mohring

994 F. Supp. 2d 649 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 2014

‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

David Thurston v. Kevin Frye

99 F.4th 665 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 29, 2024

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from claims of statutory or constitutional violations when they reasonably mistook the legality of their actions. … immunity—typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established.”

Chariell Glaze v. Gary Andrews

721 F.3d 528 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 19, 2013

An official is entitled to qualified immunity unless the facts alleged establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and that right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Pearson v. … There is no admissible evidence to establish that Andrews knew about a substantial risk to Glaze’s safety. Andrews is thus entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

Air Supply, Inc. v. Wahlder

9 La.App. 3 Cir. 107 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 10, 2009

. § 1983 , as defendants are entitled to absolute and qualified immunity. … We conclude that plaintiffs herein have failed to allege sufficient facts to assert that defendants violated a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known and, therefore, have failed to state a