Case law

LSO, Ltd. v. Stroh

205 F.3d 1146 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 6, 2000

Once the defense of qualified immunity is raised by the defendant, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the rights allegedly violated were “clearly established.” See Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. … Thus, LSO’s right was “clearly established.” 3.

Bala v. Stenehjem

671 F. Supp. 2d 1067 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Nov 30, 2009

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil lawsuits unless “ ‘their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Anderson v. … was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” 2 Howard v.

Curtis Baker v. City of Madison, Alabama

67 F.4th 1268 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 3, 2023

“Once the defendant establishes that he was acting within his discretionary authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate.” Lee v. … “Second, the plaintiff must show that the violation was clearly established.” Id. (emphasis and quotation marks omitted).

State ex rel. Grant County Commission v. Judge Nelson

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 23, 2021

Prince George’s County, Md., 309 F.3d 224, 229 (4th Cir. 2002) (“Because qualified immunity is an immunity from having to litigate, as contrasted with an immunity from liability … Traditional appellate review of a qualified immunity ruling cannot achieve the intended goal of an immunity ruling: “the right not to be subject to the burden of trial.”

Fogel v. Collins

531 F.3d 824 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 2008

Police officers performing discretionary functions within the scope of their employment have qualified immunity from civil suit as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … A two-step analysis guides our qualified immunity inquiry.

A.B. ex rel. B.S. v. Adams-Arapahoe 28J School District

831 F. Supp. 2d 1226 · District Court, D. Colorado · Nov 28, 2011

Was the constitutional violation clearly established? Rice has asserted qualified immunity as a defense to these claims. Thus, she is liable only if her actions violated a clearly established constitutional right. … Burke also asserts qualified immunity. Therefore, she is liable for these constitutional violations only if they were clearly established at the time they were committed.

Friedman v. Weiner

515 F. Supp. 563 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 3, 1981

A review of the cases suggests that the individual defendants, if entitled to any immunity, are entitled at most to qualified immunity. … Where a public official has or may have a defense based on qualified immunity, the burden is on the defendant to raise the defense and establish his entitlement to immunity. Gomez v.

Bennie F. Calhoun v. New York State Division of Parole Officers: J. McQuire Ted Clark R. White and G. Stern

999 F.2d 647 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 23, 1993

Qualified Immunity The doetrine of qualified immunity shields state officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Since in these circumstances the constitutional right now claimed by Calhoun was not clearly established in the spring of 1985, defendants White and Stern were entitled to qualified immunity.

Barham v. Salazar

556 F.3d 844 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 20, 2009

United States, “[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 person … If that question is answered in the affirmative, the court then asks whether the constitutional right was clearly established. Ramsey, 434 F.3d at 572 (citing Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 ).

Lovell v. Comsewogue School District

214 F. Supp. 2d 319 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 15, 2002

Qualified Immunity In two sentences, the defendants argue that Defendant Rella’s conduct is shielded by qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

García-Díaz v. Cintrón-Suárez

120 F. Supp. 3d 68 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 23, 2015

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … As such, the court focuses on the second prong of the qualified immunity test, namely, whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. 1.

Pruitt v. Pernell

360 F. Supp. 2d 738 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 5, 2005

Therefore, immunity can be established by showing the right allegedly violated was (1) not “clearly established” at the time, or (2) that the violation of a “clearly established” right by a police officer was reasonable when … Therefore, to determine whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the

Kyle Beatty v. Clinton Gardner

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 16, 2026

But because that limit was not clearly established at the time, qualified immunity shields them from liability. So we will affirm the District Court’s summary judgment for the officers. I. … Several of our sister circuits have previously granted qualified immunity from similar claims, reasoning that there is no clearly established “First Amendment right to re- main silent when questioned by the police.”

Bakos v. Roach

California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 2025

Defendants cross-appeal, challenging the trial court’s conclusion that they lack qualified immunity. … entitlement to qualified immunity.

Amtreco, Inc. v. O.H. Materials, Inc.

802 F. Supp. 440 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Oct 13, 1992

for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Assuming that plaintiffs had constitutional rights protecting them from the alleged wrongful conduct of the federal defendants, these rights are obviously not clearly established.

Joseph De Ritis v. Thomas McGarrigle

861 F.3d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 29, 2017

not “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. … Here, addressing both prongs of qualified immunity, the District Court concluded that Roger had violated De Ritis’s right to free speech and that the right, as defined by the District Court, was clearly established.

Maureen Tierney, for Herself and as Mother of Philip T. Newton, Patrick J. Newton v. Joel R. Davidson Thomas E. Williams, State of Vermont

133 F.3d 189 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 7, 1998

him to believe that his action did not violate clearly established law. … “A qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such law

Harris v. Coweta County

433 F.3d 807 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 23, 2005

The defendants having established their eligibility for qualified immunity, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not appro *812 priate. Lee, 284 F.3d at 1194 . … Is Scott entitled to qualified immunity?

Austin Joseph Goodwin v. Board of Education of Fayette County

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 12, 2019

to qualified immunity. … established statutory laws rendering qualified immunity inapplicable.”9 The statute cited by the Petitioner as imposing a mandatory or discretionary duty on the Respondents to supervise him is W.

D'Agastino v. City of Warren

75 F. App'x 990 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 24, 2003

clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … We have established that there are two ways in which a plaintiff seeking to overcome the bar of qualified immunity can show that a right was clearly established in the law at the time the alleged violation occurred.