Case law

Perez v. Oakland County

466 F.3d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 18, 2006

We thus move to the second step of the qualified immunity test; we determine whether the right violated was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. Myers, 422 F.3d at 352 (citing Estate of Carter v. … We ultimately find that Rice is entitled to qualified immunity because no law exists that would clearly establish for a person in Rice’s position that she was violating Perez’s Eighth Amendment rights.

Foster v. McGrail

844 F. Supp. 16 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 25, 1994

In addition, even if plaintiff succeeded in proving a prima facie claim for a state constitutional violation, he failed to overcome defendant’s qualified immunity as established *25 under state law. … is claiming “have violated a right under Federal or State constitutional or statutory law that was ‘clearly established’ at the time.”

Fahirri Dannah v. City of Grand Rapids

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 29, 2026

The district court rejected the officers’ qualified-immunity defense, reasoning that a jury could find that they violated Dannah’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. … Page 4 Qualified immunity saves officers “the time, expense and risk of money-damages actions unless they violate clearly established constitutional rights.” Moore v.

Oliverio Martinez v. City of Oxnard Oxnard Police Dept. Art Lopez, Chief Maria Pena Andrew Salinas Ron Zavala, and Ben Chavez

337 F.3d 1091 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 30, 2003

We entertained at that time only the interlocutory appeal from the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Chavez. … Because, under the facts alleged by Martinez, Chavez violated Martinez’s clearly established due process rights, see Saucier v.

Brown v. St. Landry Parish Sheriff's Dept

298 F. Supp. 3d 879 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Mar 21, 2018

, not only from suit, but from "liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." 31 Qualified immunity … The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was "clearly established" at the time of the violation.

Matthew Livers v. Tim Dunning

700 F.3d 340 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 8, 2012

DISCUSSION Appellants are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) they violated a federal constitutional or statutory right belonging to Livers or Sampson (2) that was clearly established at the time of the violation … Appellants are entitled to qualified immunity on Livers’ failure-to- intervene claim. G.

Pahk v. Hawaii

109 F. Supp. 2d 1262 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Jul 25, 2000

On the section 1983 claims (Counts V, VI, and VII), qualified immunity bars claims against state officials in their individual capacities if their conduct did not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional … The plaintiff bears the burden of proof that the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Veney v. Ojeda

321 F. Supp. 2d 733 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 15, 2004

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability for alleged civil rights violations to the extent the officials’ “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If no constitutional violation is found, qualified immunity is clearly unnecessary, as plaintiffs underlying constitutional claim simply fails.

Courtney v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Department of Public Safety

722 F.3d 1216 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 15, 2013

Ct. 2088, 2095–96 (2012) (discussing Supreme Court authority which had “injected uncertainty” into clearly established law in the qualified immunity context). Smith’s reading of Moore, Devenpeck, and Atwater is flawed … Alternatively, the district court concluded Smith was entitled to qualified immunity on Courtney’s claim of unlawful arrest because he did not violate clearly established law.

Prokey v. Watkins

942 F.2d 67 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 19, 1991

The general rule of qualified immunity, set out in Harlow v. … Explaining the Harlow standard, the Court said that, [ujnless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the

Parker v. American Traffic Solutions, Inc.

835 F.3d 1363 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 31, 2016

It is by now well-established that an order denying federal qualified immunity satisfies the above requirements. See Schmelz v. Monroe Cty., 954 F.2d 1540 , 1543 (11th Cir. 1992) (citing Mitchell v. … Rule 38 sanctions are appropriately imposed against appellants who raise “clearly frivolous claims in the face of established law and clear facts.” Farese v.

Fanning v. Montgomery County Children & Youth Services

702 F. Supp. 1184 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1988

Mason argues that he violated no clearly established right of the plaintiffs, and is therefore free from liability even under the less protective cloak of qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity The remaining question with respect to Mr. Mason is whether the plaintiffs have alleged a violation of a clearly established right of which Mr. Mason should have been aware.

Kennedy Ex Rel. Gorton v. City of Ridgefield

439 F.3d 1055 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 6, 2006

immunity, and the issue appealed concerns whether the facts demonstrated a violation of clearly established law. … Southwest Airlines, 124 F.3d 1103,1107 (9th Cir.1997) (“[W]e have jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity where the appeal focuses on whether the defendants violated a clearly established

Edwards v. Jolliff-Blake

907 F.3d 1052 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 1, 2018

right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation." … We conduct this inquiry against the backdrop of the Supreme Court's repeated (and recent) reminders "not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality" and with the understanding that qualified immunity

Putnam v. Keller

332 F.3d 541 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 22, 2003

We will affirm a grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity if the "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … clearly established.

Huertas Morales v. Agosto-Alicea

278 F. Supp. 2d 164 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 1, 2003

Qualified Immunity According to Defendants, the conduct of Juan Agosto Alicea is protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity because it was imminently reasonable and did not violate clearly established law. … The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit and liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable

Mullins v. Crouch

391 F. Supp. 2d 457 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 28, 2005

Qualified Immunity In this case, Crouch seeks judgment on the pleadings on the basis that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Public officials performing discretionary functions enjoy immunity from suits for damages, provided their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Monroe v. Arkansas State University

495 F.3d 591 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 26, 2007

qualified immunity and direct dismissal of the action. … Although the defendant bears the burden of proof for this affirmative defense, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the law was clearly established. Sparr, 306 F.3d at 593 .

Jesus Hernandez v. Unknown Named Agents, et

785 F.3d 117 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 24, 2015

That is the chore of the first prong of the qualified-immunity test, which we do not address. The alleged right at issue was not clearly established, under these facts, in 2010. The judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED. … We hold unanimously that Agent Mesa has qualified immunity from this suit for a Fifth Amendment substantive due process violation because he did not violate any clearly established rights flowing from that Amendment.

Frances Green v. Monmouth University (080612) (Monmouth County and Statewide)

237 N.J. 516 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 7, 2019

of immunity is decided once it is established that the entity itself is “charitable,” “religious,” or “educational.” … The panel found that the concerts were nevertheless “clearly ‘educational’ and ‘charitable’ within the intent of the Charitable Immunity Act.” Ibid.