Case law

Gutierrez v. Municipal Court of the Southeast Judicial District

838 F.2d 1031 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 27, 1988

Clearly Established in General In Harlow v. … The Court then set forth its “clearly established” test.

Olivo Gonzalez v. Teacher's Retirement Board

208 F. Supp. 2d 163 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 12, 2002

Plaintiffs counter by arguing that the doctrine of qualified immunity does not protect the Defendants from a violation of clearly established constitutional or statutory rights, and that the Court should not abstain pursuant … Qualified Immunity Defendants invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity in support of their motion to dismiss.

Tyler v. Kyler

15 Neb. Ct. App. 939 · Nebraska Court of Appeals · Sep 11, 2007

Whether an official may prevail in his or her qualified immunity defense depends upon the objective reasonableness of his or her conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law. Id. … The officers’ conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. They were entitled to qualified immunity.

Jones v. Hunt

410 F.3d 1221 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 14, 2005

The district court dismissed her claims against Haberman on the basis of qualified immunity, finding that Haberman’s actions did not amount to a seizure and that, even if they did, the law was not clearly established at … established law, the district court granted Haberman’s motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity.

Anna Chernyy v. Monty Roesler

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 11, 2026

We assume these facts are true, but they do not affect our finding that Moore is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law. 3 Chernyy also argues that “sexual assault … Moore is similarly entitled to qualified immunity for the failure to train claim because he did not violate any clearly established right “of which a reasonable person would have known.” Parrish v.

Ducksworth v. Landrum

62 F.4th 209 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 10, 2023

Here, as in all qualified immunity cases, the plaintiff must show (A) the violation of a constitutional right that (B) was clearly established at the time of the officers’ conduct. … Qualified immunity protects a law enforcement officer from personal liability in a lawsuit unless a plaintiff shows that the officer’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.

Wynn v. Morgan

861 F. Supp. 622 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jul 8, 1994

However, the Sixth Circuit noted, the defendants may assert the defense of qualified immunity to the extent that their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … were “clearly established” at the time the actions were taken.

CAREPARTNERS, LLC v. Lashway

545 F.3d 867 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 25, 2008

If the right was not clearly established at the time of the violation, the official is entitled to qualified immunity. 6 Id. A. … Therefore, the First Amendment rights advanced by CarePartners were clearly established for the purpose of evaluating the State employees’ qualified immunity defense.

Tlamka v. Serrell

244 F.3d 628 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 2, 2001

A. 9 Qualified immunity protects a governmental official from suit when his "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Sexton v. … was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation."

Pesek v. City of Brunswick

794 F. Supp. 768 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 2, 1992

right asserted is clearly established. … violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Reiver v. District of Columbia

925 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 22, 2013

Since the Court finds that the police conduct was objectively reasonable and did not violate plaintiff’s clearly established rights, the officers are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity, and the motion will … “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

Allah v. Brown

351 F. Supp. 2d 278 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 26, 2004

Qualified Immunity Even if a plaintiff can establish a constitutional violation, under the doctrine of qualified immunity government officials will not be liable if “[tjheir conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … If the law is not established clearly when an official acts, he is entitled to qualified immunity because he “could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments.”

Kane ex rel. K.J. v. Chester County Department of Children, Youth & Families

10 F. Supp. 3d 671 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2014

The CYF Motion to Dismiss next argues that the discretionary conduct of the CYF defendants is protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity because plaintiff has not pleaded a right that was so clearly established that … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” James v.

Sidney Arnold v. Steven Williams

979 F.3d 262 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 23, 2020

pleading the defense of qualified immunity.’” … In this case, Arnold broadly addressed qualified immunity in his original complaint by alleging that Deputy Williams “knowingly violated” “clearly established law.”

King's Grant Inn v. Gilford, et al.

2005 DNH 022 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Feb 16, 2005

qualified immunity from liability for enforcing it. … Because the contours of the legal right defendants violated were not clearly established at the time they acted, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability, and they are entitled

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.

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.

Kamel Chaney-Snell v. Andrew Young

98 F.4th 699 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 15, 2024

Page 25 clearly established right at the second step of the qualified-immunity analysis. … Besides, Chaney-Snell could not overcome the second step of the qualified-immunity test by using these cases. Unpublished decisions cannot create clearly established rights.

Wilson v. Zellner

200 F. Supp. 2d 1356 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 26, 2002

immunity because Plaintiff has failed to establish that the alleged constitutional right was clearly established at the time of Zellner’s actions. … Under this prong of the qualified immunity analysis the issue is whether it was clearly established at the time of Defendant Zellner’s actions that it was unlawful for a prison official to detain a prisoner for a period of

Malik v. Arapahoe County Department of Social Services

191 F.3d 1306 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 14, 1999

support a conclusion that Coleman’s actions were outside the scope of absolute immunity, and that both defendants’ actions violated clearly established law. … clearly established at the time of the defendant’s actions.”