Case law

Latson v. Clarke

249 F. Supp. 3d 838 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Apr 20, 2017

A court deciding the applicability of qualified immunity must determine “whether a constitutional violation occurred” and “whether the right violated was clearly established.” Tobey, 706 F.3d at 385 . … Where a plaintiff “(1) 'allege[s] a violation of a right (2) that is clearly established at the time of the violation,” a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds must be denied. Evans v.

Briaheen Thomas v. Tice

943 F.3d 145 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 12, 2019

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … As the Majority notes, qualified immunity does not shield a government official where she has “violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Reichle v.

Hernandez v. Hines

159 F. Supp. 2d 378 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 29, 2001

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 unless the Plaintiffs demonstrate that they violated clearly established constitutional law. Schultea v. … The constitutional rights alleged to be violated *386 are “clearly established” for the purposes of evaluating qualified immunity.

Madonna Sterling, of the Estate of Marcus Anthony Wayman v. Borough of Minersville F. Scott Wilinsky, Police Officer Thomas Hoban, Police Officer Joseph Wilinsky, Police Chief, Individually and as Police Officers for the Borough of Minersville Officer F. Scott Wilinsky and Officer Thomas Hoban

232 F.3d 190 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 14, 2000

The court further ruled that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity since their conduct violated Wayman's clearly established right to privacy as protected by the Constitution. 7 Officers Hoban and Wilinsky … II. 8 We have previously set forth the analytical framework for deciding qualified immunity claims. First, we must determine if the plaintiff has alleged a deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Gale v. Storti

608 F. Supp. 2d 629 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 2009

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity can protect police officers sued in their individual capacities from liability under § 1983, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fourth Amendment if their conduct does not violate clearly … “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell v.

Edwards v. Gilbert

867 F.2d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 28, 1989

Once a defendant advances a defense of qualified immunity, he is entitled to summary judgment unless “the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions_” Mitchell … established” for purposes of qualified immunity at the time of Molbert’s death.

Tillery v. Kalinski

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 23, 2020

To overcome the qualified immunity defense at the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff must have shown facts that make out a violation of a constitutional right, and the right at issue must have been “clearly established … The right at issue is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes if: [t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official

Human Rights Defense Center, Inc. v. Uttecht

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 11, 2025

Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because HRDC’s asserted right against delayed delivery in this context was clearly established. … Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because HRDC’s due process right to be notified of the Committee’s decision was not clearly established.

Mission Consolidated Independent School District v. Garcia

55 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1065 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 29, 2012

in a plea to the jurisdiction. 32 We held in Garcia I that “the TCHRA clearly and unambiguously waives immunity” for suits brought against school districts under the TCHRA. 33 However, the Legislature has waived immunity … The District incorrectly contends that our opinion in Garcia I did not actually address the issue of whether the TCHRA clearly and unambiguously waives immunity for school districts.

Lavoy Steed v. Missouri State Highway Patrol

2 F.4th 767 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 25, 2021

Qualified immunity shields a defendant from personal liability if his or her conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Quraishi v. … “[T]he issue for immunity purposes is not probable cause in fact but arguable probable cause, that is, whether the officer should have known that the arrest violated plaintiff’s clearly established right.” Schaffer v.

Clouse Ex Rel. Clouse v. State

199 Ariz. 196 · Arizona Supreme Court · Feb 1, 2001

We also invited the legislature to address those areas that might need the protection of absolute immunity or qualified immunity. … ’s failure to re *204 tain an arrested person in custody involves clearly governmental activity.

24 Franklin Ave. R.E. Corp. v. Cannella

139 A.D.3d 717 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 4, 2016

The complaint does not allege that Fitzsimmons undertook any actions that violated “clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have been aware” (Zalaski v City of Hartford, 723 F3d 382, 388 … Therefore, the defendants are entitled to dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against Fitzsimmons, based on the principle of qualified immunity (see Vincent v Yelich, 718 F3d 157, 170 [2d Cir 2013]; Scott v Fischer

Fields v. Abbott

652 F.3d 886 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 30, 2011

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … due process right that Fields asserts was clearly established when the events in this case took place.

Morris v. Dearborne

181 F.3d 657 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 16, 1999

Dearborne contends that she is entitled to qualified immunity because her actions did not violate clearly established law and that her actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances. … and the Supreme Court, a defendant’s defense of qualified immunity, based on a claim that the right to family integrity was not clearly established, will fail.

Brittany Harris v. Kimberly Klare

902 F.3d 630 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 5, 2018

, and (2) whether that right was clearly established.” … “When . . . a defendant raises qualified immunity as a defense . . . [t]he plaintiff has the burden of showing that a right is clearly established . . .

Monica L. Moore v. Gwinnett County, and Xyz Company, and John Doe, Jointly and Severally, J.O. Meadows

967 F.2d 1495 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 6, 1992

According to this doctrine, “public officials performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified [or good faith] immunity from civil damages liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … On the basis of that analysis, we disagree with the district court’s conclusion and find that qualified immunity clearly attaches to Officer Meadows’s challenged conduct. I.

Russell v. Scott

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 19, 2026

The District Court concluded that Scott had not established his entitlement to qualified immunity because a reasonable jury could conclude that his actions violated Russell’s clearly established Fourteenth Amendment rights … Clearly Established Finally, we turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether it was clearly established at the time of the incident that Scott’s conduct 12 We further note that,

Webb v. Streeter

District Court, D. Nebraska · Aug 22, 2022

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability in a 42 U.S.C. §1983 action when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense for which the defendant carries the burden of proof. The plaintiff, however, must demonstrate that the law is clearly established.” Sparr v.

Rodriguez-Cortes v. Superintendencia del Capitolio

236 F. Supp. 3d 498 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 17, 2017

(2), if so, whether that right was clearly established at the time of defendant’s violation.” … Defendants fail to satisfy either part of the qualified immunity test. Accordingly, the Court finds that the defense of qualified immunity does not apply to defendant Vazquez.

York v. Purkey

14 F. App'x 628 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 20, 2001

Therefore, in deciding whether law was clearly established for the purpose of qualified immunity, we look for decisions that involve positions with the same or similar statutory duties. Id. In McCloud v. … The Court wrote: If the law was clearly established, the [qualified] immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.