Case law

Levin, Vodka Properties LLC v. City of Buffalo

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 18, 2026

Individual City Defendants 30 “In a § 1983 action, it is well-settled that qualified immunity 31 shields a defendant from personal liability for damages so long as his 32 conduct did not violate clearly established … Because Plaintiffs’ Section 7 1983 claims are based on “clearly established” constitutional rights, 8 qualified immunity protects the individual City Defendants from 9 having to defend against Plaintiffs’ claims

Golio v. Suggs

285 F. App'x 773 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 6, 2008

“Such jurisdiction is nevertheless limited to circumstances where the qualified immunity defense may be established as a matter of law.” Escalera v. … However, an arresting officer will be entitled to qualified immunity from a suit for damages if she can establish that there was “arguable probable cause” to arrest, “if either (a) it was objectively reasonable for the officer

Guest v. Leis

255 F.3d 325 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 2, 2001

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability, as well as from suit, if their official conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Qualified Immunity According to plaintiffs, “Defendants Leis, Hamilton County Sheriffs Department and RE Cl cannot assert qualified immunity” as “political subdivisions.” Guest Br. at 46.

Gilles v. Repicky

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 21, 2007

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects officials from liability for civil damages as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Repicky’s Entitlement to Qualified Immunity Nevertheless, Repicky is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, or if it was objectively reasonable for

Jefferson v. Moore

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 8, 2026

unless and until after the qualified immunity question is decided.” … In Siegert the Supreme Court focused on one specific issue—whether qualified immunity was appropriate because of the absence of any clearly established law prohibiting the alleged misconduct of the officers. See id.

Terenzio v. Urena

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 18, 2025

allege a violation of clearly established law. … As a result, the District Court concluded, the claims necessarily "fail[ed] on both prongs of the qualified immunity analysis."

Ablordeppey v. Walsh

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 25, 2023

The district court further held that, even assuming that Appellant had established viable substantive due process claims, Appellees were nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity given the lack of clearly established … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are immune from civil liability "so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Abreu-Guzman v. Ford

241 F.3d 69 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 28, 2001

Second, the court must "proceed to determine whether that right -7- was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation." Id. … Defendants, therefore, are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law on plaintiffs' Bivens claim.4 B.

Causey v. Bay City

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 29, 2006

, and (2) whether that right was clearly established.”2 Id. … Thus, the officers violated the plaintiffs’ clearly established Fourth Amendment rights by proceeding without a warrant and are not entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

Wallace v. Texas Tech Univ.

80 F.3d 1042 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 9, 1996

immunity because a right to coach-player association as claimed by Wallace was not clearly established at the time of Dickey’s instructions. … F.2d at 1025-26 (discussing qualified immunity).

Suzanne Wooten v. John Roach, Sr.

964 F.3d 395 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 6, 2020

, 1 noting that “conclusively establishing official immunity at this stage in the litigation [would] be difficult based on the allegations of this case.” … In addition to the issue of prosecutorial immunity, Defendants urge us to consider qualified and official immunity.

Ricardo Salazar-Limon v. City of Houston

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 15, 2016

“In order to overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must allege a violation of a constitutional right, and then must show that ‘the right was clearly established . . . in light of the specific context of the case … of which was clearly unreasonable.”

Bizzarro v. Miranda

394 F.3d 82 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 7, 2005

Qualified Immunity and Appellate Jurisdiction. … Public officials are entitled to immunity from civil liability “if their actions *86 were objectively reasonable, as evaluated in the context of legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time.” Poe v.

Cynthia Myers v. Karen Hasara and Gail Danner

226 F.3d 821 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 17, 2000

qualified immunity was not justified. … to the injury were clearly established at the time.

Jose Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co.

768 F.3d 871 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 19, 2014

Yet the Court did not establish any new theory, and although the Filarsky discussion does include a broad reading of the qualified immunity doctrine, id. at 1667–68, that doctrine is not implicated by this case. … The decision is applicable only in the context of § 1983 qualified immunity from personal tort liability. See, e.g., ibid.

Edwin C. West v. Kurt Schwebke

333 F.3d 745 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 20, 2003

Defendants now pursue an interlocutory appeal, arguing that qualified immunity entitles them to an immediate end to what is left of the litigation. See Behrens v. … Qualified immunity is available unless the rules of law on which plaintiffs rely are so clearly established that a reasonable state actor is bound to understand *749 how they apply to the situation at hand.

Lyles v. US Postal Service

79 F.3d 372 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 19, 1996

that neither of those claims allege violations of rights that were clearly established at the time of Krautheim's and Green's alleged conduct. … law that was "clearly established" at the time the alleged conduct occurred.

Carol Stavropoulos v. Evan Firestone

361 F.3d 610 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 25, 2004

If we find that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, we must ask whether the right was clearly established. Id. … If we find that the conduct did not violate a constitutional right, or that the right was not clearly established, then the officer is shielded from suit by qualified immunity. Id.

Gordon v. Newsom

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 24, 2026

The district court properly dismissed Gordon’s claims for damages because defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See Cuevas v. … of their conduct was clearly established at the time.”

Vieira v. Presley

988 F.2d 850 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 17, 1993

The district court 1 ruled that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity. We affirm. … To be entitled to qualified immunity, an official’s conduct must be objectively reasonable with reference to clearly established law. Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 191 , 104 S.Ct. 3012, 3017 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984).