Case law

Smith v. Maloney

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 2, 1993

legal materials for two years] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [prison officials] possessed." … "It is enough, rather, that there existed case law sufficient to clearly establish that if a court were presented with such a situation, the court ____ would find that plaintiff's rights were violated."

Emma Rivera v. Paul Murphy

979 F.2d 259 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 10, 1992

Ill Qualified Immunity The Supreme Court announced the general rule of qualified immunity in Har *263 low, when it stated that “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability … for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Lloyd Steven Lane v. J.H. Griffin, and Muhammad Nubee, Chaplain, Rae McNamara Director of Prisons, James Woodard, Secretary of Corrections

834 F.2d 403 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 3, 1987

Griffin moved for reconsideration of the court’s summary judgment decision on the ground, among others, that he was entitled to qualified immunity. … The question concerning Griffin’s entitlement to qualified immunity is whether his conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Air Sunshine, Inc. v. Carl

663 F.3d 27 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 2, 2011

Qualified Immunity Standard Qualified immunity "provides defendant public officials an immunity from suit and not a mere defense to liability." Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263, 268 (1st Cir. 2009). … "[T]he qualified immunity inquiry is a two-part test.

Shames v. California Travel & Tourism Commission

607 F.3d 611 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 8, 2010

The Court established a two-pronged test to determine when state involvement in anticompetitive conduct can render a party eligible for immunity: (1) the challenged restraint must be “one clearly articulated and affirmatively … We held that the companies’ actions did not qualify for state action immunity because the OPUC “did not specifically and clearly authorize[ ] by the relevant statutory process” their anticompetitive conduct.

No. 94-5284

55 F.3d 1123 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 31, 1995

The primary question in such qualified immunity cases is whether the plaintiff has pointed to facts stating that the defendants violated her "clearly established rights." Anderson v. … Thus, the defendants did not violate the plaintiff's clearly established federal rights, and therefore they have qualified immunity from plaintiff's Sec. 1983 claims.

Steven A. Kurowski and David H. Nicholls v. James J. Krajewski, Individually and in His Capacity as Judge of the Lake County Court, Division III

848 F.2d 767 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 2, 1988

Krajewski contends that even if Branti clearly established the constitutional right in question, a judge acting in December 1985 could not reasonably have predicted that he would be held liable for such an act. … The argument runs: In December 1985 a reasonable person might have predicted that a judge would be immune from damages for firing a public defender; therefore “the law” in 1985 had not clearly established that judges could

Ryan Crostley v. Lamar County Texas

717 F.3d 410 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 29, 2013

Brooks and McNeal each filed motions for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. … Analysis Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages to the extent that their conduct is objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. Harlow v.

Williams v. Bass

63 F.3d 483 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 29, 1995

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff's rights were so clearly established at the time the acts were committed that officials in the defendants' position, measured objectively, would have clearly … The district court properly applied this standard in deciding the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Bobby Bland v. B. Roberts

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 23, 2013

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages in a § 1983 action insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … In determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, a court must decide (1) whether the defendant has violated a constitutional right of the plaintiff and (2) whether that right was clearly established

Odd v. Malone

538 F.3d 202 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 4, 2008

A prosecutor bears the “heavy burden” of establishing entitlement to absolute immunity. Light v. Haws, 472 F.3d 74, 80-81 (3d Cir.2007) (quoting Forsyth v. Kleindienst, 599 F.2d 1203, 1212 (3d Cir.1979)). … As to the latter, the Court noted that at common law, prosecutors were absolutely immune from defamation liability for in-court statements but received only qualified immunity for out-of-court statements.

Josiah Haynesworth and Fred Hancock v. Frank P. Miller, Chief, Law Enforcement Section, Office of the Corporation Counsel, (Two Cases)

820 F.2d 1245 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 29, 1987

If Miller enjoys only qualified immunity for the conduct at issue, then additional pleadings are necessary to evaluate whether he is entitled to protection in this case. 159 Accordingly, if qualified immunity carries the … Qualified immunity protects "‘government officials performing discretionary functions ... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Joseph Maser v. City of Coralville, IA

139 F.4th 1004 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 13, 2025

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity, shielding him from liability unless: “(1) he violated a constitutional right, and (2) that constitutional right was clearly established so that a reasonable officer would know … Therefore, we agree with the district court that Maser’s constitutional rights were not violated, and we need not reach the clearly established prong.

Williams v. Kaufman County

343 F.3d 689 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 19, 2003

searches was clearly established at the timé, making Harris’s conduct objectively unreasonable; (2) Harris is entitled to qualified immunity on Brown’s illegal detention claim, the only detention claim surviving summary … Whether the law was “clearly established” Although we hold today that the prolonged detention of plaintiffs was unlawful, we nonetheless agree with the district court that qualified immunity shields Harris from liability.

Mcclendon v. Story County Sheriff's Office

403 F.3d 510 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 4, 2005

Conduct does not violate a clearly established right unless it is "plainly incompetent" or a knowing violation of a clearly established precedent. … City of Barling, 181 F.3d 914 , 917 (8th Cir.1999) ("A law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity from suit for actions that are objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law and the facts known

Reaves v. O'Neill

23 F.3d 402 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 4, 1994

We agree with Officer O'Neill that he was entitled to qualified immunity on all of these claims. 4 7 In Harlow v. … of clearly established law."

Michael Cunningham v. Eric Olson

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 2, 2026

MSHP Superintendent Colonel Eric Olson moved to dismiss Cunningham’s § 1983 claims under sovereign and qualified immunity, and the district court 1 denied Olson both forms of immunity. … On the contrary, the legal effect of expungement was clearly established under Missouri law when Kahler arrested Cunningham. See, e.g., Alpert, 543 S.W.3d at 597.

97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1679, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3149 Herman J. Blueford v. K.W. Prunty, Warden K. Daniels B.H. Moses C. Basilio M.E. Bourland, Correctional Officer II at Calipatria State Prison Arnold Trujillo

108 F.3d 251 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 6, 1997

If not, he is not entitled to qualified immunity. … (finding no qualified immunity where cases "clearly" set out the premises of a particular clearly established right). 16 However, government officials are "not charged with predicting the future course of constitutional law

Cole v. Bone

993 F.2d 1328 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 12, 1993

Id. 13 Government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages by qualified immunity as long as their "conduct does not violate clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional … In other words, to decide whether an official is protected by qualified immunity, a court must determine whether the official's action was objectively legally reasonable in the light of the legal rules that were clearly established

Heidi Group v. TX Hlth Human Svc

138 F.4th 920 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 28, 2025

Dacus violated Heidi’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. He is not entitled to qualified immunity. C Dacus offers two counterarguments. … * Heidi plausibly alleged that Dacus violated Heidi’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.