Case law

Martinez v. New Mexico Department of Public Safety

47 F. App'x 513 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 29, 2002

Consistent with that ruling, the court denied qualified immunity to Trooper Boyd on the excessive use of force claim. … “For the law to be clearly established, there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must be as plaintiff maintains.”

Garner v. Steger

69 F. Supp. 3d 581 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Oct 9, 2014

Third, defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights. … The court next turns to the second prong of qualified immunity — whether the employment action here violated Garner’s clearly established rights.

Louis Bianchi v. Thomas McQueen

818 F.3d 309 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 29, 2016

Qualified Immunity Qualified-immunity doctrine holds that “government of- ficials are not subject to damages liability for the perfor- mance of their discretionary functions when ‘their conduct does not violate clearly … was clearly established at the time and under the circumstances presented.”

Cesar v. Achim

542 F. Supp. 2d 897 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Mar 27, 2008

The burden of proving the existence of a clearly established constitutional right is on the plaintiff, and it is a heavy one because qualified immunity is designed to shield from civil liability “ ‘all but the plainly incompetent … Moreover, I do not believe qualified immunity is appropriate at this time, as Achim’s alleged conduct, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, could amount to a violation of a clearly established constitutional right

Sutton v. Village of Valley Stream, NY

96 F. Supp. 2d 189 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 8, 2000

A government official claiming qualified immunity bears the burden of proving either: (1) that the conduct alleged did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) that it was … established” so as to defeat a claim for qualified immunity.

George Trammell v. Kevin Fruge

868 F.3d 332 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 17, 2017

Officers Fruge, Garza, Ingles, and Neveu Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Qualified immunity as to this claim is thus appropriate. .

Nation v. State, Dept. of Correction

144 Idaho 177 · Idaho Supreme Court · Mar 29, 2007

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Next, did the conduct of the party asserting qualified immunity violate a clearly established right of the party claiming the violation? Finally, was the conduct of the party asserting qualified immunity reasonable?

Moore v. City of Wynnewood

57 F.3d 924 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 13, 1995

were not clearly established. … Qualified immunity shields Sanders from liability and the burden of having to go to trial unless he violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Ramirez v. City of Buena Park

560 F.3d 1012 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 25, 2009

“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … Under Saucier’s second prong, we ask “whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Margaret Byers v. Gordon Painter

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 17, 2026

The burden of establishing qualified immunity rests on the party seeking the shield of that immunity. Id. … “That means that we may grant qualified immunity [solely] on the ground that the purported right was not clearly established[.]” Id.

Hall v. Trochessett

105 F.4th 335 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 20, 2024

the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. … We will now determine whether there was a clearly established right.

Hulen v. Yates

322 F.3d 1229 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 4, 2003

Hulen received all process which is due, (2) Dean Costello was entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established. Even assuming that Dr. … Qualified Immunity Government officials who perform discretionary government functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages, provided their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of

Batton v. Mashburn

107 F. Supp. 3d 1191 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 12, 2015

Qualified immunity shields from liability government officials performing discretionary functions “if their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable government official would have known.” … Because Plaintiff has alleged the violation of his right of association and this right was clearly established at the time of his termination, Mashburn is not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to this claim. 5 B

St. John v. McColley

653 F. Supp. 2d 1155 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 8, 2009

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … John’s rights were clearly established. The Court finds that they were.

In Re COVID-Related Restrictions on Religious Services

Superior Court of Delaware · Aug 28, 2023

“[E]ven where the law is clearly established and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is clearly defined,” the qualified immunity defense may still shield officials from liability.84 “[I]f it was objectively … clearly established right.

Halperin v. Kissinger

578 F. Supp. 231 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 13, 1984

The doctrine *234 of qualified immunity now focuses on whether a government official’s conduct “violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … judgment based on qualified immunity. .

Bradley L. McCloud C. Calvin Skaates Terrence B. Cohen Gloria Jean Morgan Vernon E. Hysell v. Joseph W. Testa,defendant-Appellant

227 F.3d 424 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 8, 2000

“If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” Id. at 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 . … He is not, however, clearly entitled to summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity at this stage. Ill For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s denial of Testa’s motion for summary judgment is AFFIRMED.

Moore v. Dormin

252 A.D.2d 421 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 16, 1998

As for qualified privilege, the plaintiff clearly did not raise a triable issue as to the defendant’s motivation, under either the constitutional or the common-law definition of malice. … Defendant raised the bar of absolute and qualified immunity based on his capacity as a prosecutor and the official context of the statements, arguing that the communication was made by one law-enforcement official to another

Sloan v. Dulak

868 F. Supp. 2d 535 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Apr 11, 2012

Qualified immunity protects public officials, including police officers, facing liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Going on to address whether the officer was nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not “clearly established,” the First Circuit further stated that “[a] reasonable officer .... would not have needed

Curley v. Klem

499 F.3d 199 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 24, 2007

step is whether the right that was violated was clearly established, or, in other words, “whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” … The District Court clearly saw that problem in this case.