Case law

Verdecia v. United States

327 F.3d 1171 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 29, 2003

a violation of clearly established law, this Court may properly exercise jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal”). … This court, however, “reviews summary judgment orders deciding qualified immunity questions differently from other summary judgment decisions” because of the purposes behind qualified immunity. Holland v.

Wullschleger v. Peters

28 F. Supp. 2d 549 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Nov 20, 1998

a qualified immunity defense if they prove that their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Qualified immunity is a question of law.

Williams v. Brown

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 4, 2022

Defendant Gulick argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff has not stated a constitutional deprivation and, even assuming that he did, the implicated right was not clearly established. … Qualified immunity requires a two-pronged analysis: “whether the plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for violation of a constitutional or statutory right and whether the right was clearly established at the time of

Sellers ex rel. Sellers v. Baer

28 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 8, 1994

We hold that the conduct of the officers did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would have known, and the officers therefore are entitled to qualified immunity. C. … Accordingly, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because even the right broadly asserted in this case was not clearly established in 1986. .

Abdullah v. Washington

437 F. Supp. 2d 137 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 2006

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants contend that the Eight Amendment claim against them should be dismissed based on qualified immunity. … the violation is established, whether the right was clearly established.

Losee v. Preece

District Court, D. Utah · Mar 30, 2022

In particular, Defendants contend the Court did not address the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis, which is whether the unconstitutional conduct alleged was “clearly established.” (Id.) … Plaintiff counters that Defendants’ qualified-immunity argument is moot. (ECF No. 53, at 3.) Defendants are correct that the Court erred in not giving the clearly-established prong the required treatment.

Wilkerson v. State

16 Brief Times Rptr. 394 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 1992

The plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was “clearly established.” … Hence, we find no basis justifying penetration of the shield of qualified immunity afforded to these defendants. *1127 While the question of qualified immunity generally turns on objective factors, Harlow does not preclude

April Myrick v. Fulton County, Georgia

69 F.4th 1277 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 7, 2023

That means that if a defendant raises the affirma- tive defense of qualified immunity, the district court must dismiss any claims that do not allege a violation of clearly established law. … Qualified immunity “shields a government official from lia- bility unless he violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitu- tional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Dorsey v. Wallace

134 F. Supp. 2d 1364 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Oct 17, 2000

In doing so, the plaintiffs cannot discharge their burden of showing that a right is clearly established by referring to general rules and abstract rights in order to strip the officers of their qualified immunity. … To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiffs must show that: (1) the officers violated a federal constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Santamorena v.

Vaughn v. Gray

557 F.3d 904 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 6, 2009

In deciding whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court asks two questions: “(1) whether ... there was a deprivation of a constitutional right; and, if so, (2) whether the right was clearly established … In this case, Appellants argue only that Vaughn has not established the deprivation of a constitutional right, and therefore, we need not address whether that right was “clearly established.”

Gonzalez v. City of Phoenix

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 8, 2026

Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, we examine whether the officers’ constitutional violation was clearly established. … So the clearly established prong of qualified immunity must be analyzed officer by officer. The Ninth Circuit has struggled to apply clearly established law properly in the past. See Kisela v.

Ronald C. Ayersman and Ronald C. "Mackey" Ayersman, Assistant State Fire Marshal v. Tammy S. Wratchford and Michael W. Wratchford and West Virginia State Fire Marshal's Office v. Tammy S. Wratchford and Michael W. Wratchford

West Virginia Supreme Court · May 20, 2022

rights that may be enforced via civil suits, so it cannot be a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right or law,” the violation of which can overcome qualified immunity. … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or laws . . . or are otherwise fraudulent, malicious, or oppressive[.]”

Good v. Dauphin County Social Services For Children And Youth

891 F.2d 1087 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 15, 1989

alleged a violation of a clearly established legal right. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Robinson v. City and County of Denver

39 F. Supp. 2d 1257 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 26, 1999

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability under section 1983 where their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Was the Constitutional Right Clearly Established?

Youngs v. Fusaro

179 F. Supp. 3d 198 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 31, 2016

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert, as a defense to both of Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims, that they are shielded from the lawsuit by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials whose conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Martel v.

Robert Stinson v. Raymond Rawson

799 F.3d 833 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 25, 2015

But the defendants remain protected by qualified immunity, which is lost only if Stinson presents evidence showing that they violated a clearly established constitutional right. He has not done so. … clearly established at the time of their actions.

Evenstad v. Herberg

994 F. Supp. 2d 995 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jan 10, 2014

A government actor is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate “clearly established” law at the time. 6 Defendants argue that the infliction of de minimis injury did not violate clearly established law … Defendants raise qualified immunity as a defense to all of Evenstad’s claims, but as the laws relevant to his other surviving claims were clearly established in 2006 (e.g., the right to be free from retaliation for the exercise

Henry Lavado, Jr. v. Patrick W. Keohane

992 F.2d 601 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 22, 1993

The prison officials again respond that they are entitled to qualified immunity because “[t]here is ... no clearly established law holding that a prisoner has a constitutional right to have his legal related mail opened only … whether the officers did acts which violate clearly established rights.”); Pecsi v.

Ricciuti v. New York City Transit Authority

796 F. Supp. 84 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 4, 1992

have been thought consistent with the rights they are alleged to have violated” in light of clearly established law____ [T]he dismissal of a claim against an officer asserting qualified immunity in no way logically entails … They can do so by establishing a good faith, qualified immunity defense. This good faith defense is not available to the municipality.

Lee v. Sandberg

136 F.3d 94 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 19, 1997

Even if a clearly established statutory or constitutional right is violated, qualified immunity is nonetheless a defense if the officers’ unlawful actions were objectively reasonable “as measured by reference to clearly established … Therefore, the State Troopers are not entitled to summary judgment under the “clearly established right” prong of the qualified immunity standard.