Case law

Dorothy C. Elliott, Individually and as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Archie Elliott, III Archie Elliott, Jr., Individually and as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Archie Elliott, III v. Jason Leavitt, Police Officer for District Heights, Md, and Prince George's County, Maryland David B. Mitchell, Prince George's County Police Chief Wayne Cheney, Police Officer City of District Heights, Md Michael Conboy, Police Chief for District Heights, Md, Dorothy C. Elliott, Individually and as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Archie Elliott, III Archie Elliott, Jr., Individually and as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Archie Elliott, III v. Wayne Cheney, Police Officer, and Jason Leavitt, Police Officer for District Heights, Md Prince George's County, Maryland David B. Mitchell, Prince George's County Police Chief City of District Heights, Md Michael Conboy, Police Chief for District Heights, Md

105 F.3d 174 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 24, 1997

It is one thing for courts to deny qualified immunity on the basis of a violation of clearly established law. … immunity,' and (2) the issue appealed concerned ... whether or not certain given facts showed a violation of 'clearly established' law."

Husain v. Springer

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 13, 2007

This court has 14 explained that, in determining whether a right is clearly established for qualified immunity 15 purposes, “the right . . . need not be limited to the specific factual situation in which that right … Significantly, the defendants do not address this basis for qualified immunity, i.e., whether the contours of the First Amendment right Springer violated were clearly established in 1997.

Mazuz v. State of MD

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

Tou further argued that he is enti- tled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 cause of action because the law was not clearly established in 2002 that his actions violated the Fourth Amendment and because he acted in good … "If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity." Id.

Estate of Wilbert Lee Henson v. Wichita Cou

795 F.3d 456 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 28, 2015

violated clearly established law.” … Confronted with a claim of qualified immunity, this court must determine whether the Plaintiffs allege the deprivation of a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Guillermina Cortes-Quinones v. Charles Jimenez-Nettleship, Etc.

842 F.2d 556 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 22, 1988

The appellants argue that they enjoy a “qualified immunity” from paying damages in this case. … of “deliberate indifference” is, in and of itself, inconsistent with qualified immunity.

Young v. Goord

192 F. App'x 31 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 2, 2006

The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary functions from having to stand trial “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Having concluded that the defendant officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suit, we need not decide whether any less than “clearly established” due process rights were violated.

Glen Harris v. JohnMichael O'Hare

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 30, 2014

 doctrine of qualified immunity, a government official 17 performing discretionary functions is shielded from liability for civil damages if 18 his conduct did not violate clearly established rights or if it would have … ‘clearly established’ at the 16 time of the violation.” 

Hampton v. Hanrahan

600 F.2d 600 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 23, 1979

The allegations of plaintiffs in this case clearly complain of official misconduct which is outside the ambit of the doctrine of qualified immunity. … If plaintiffs prove their case against the defendants, the doctrine of qualified immunity will not thwart recovery of damages. The rights which plaintiffs contend that defendants have violated are clearly established.

Bennett v. Campbell

564 F.2d 329 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 10, 1977

immunity which might insulate them from liability for damages. … Under this qualified immunity doctrine, a government officer performing acts in the course of official conduct is insulated from damage suits only if “(1) at the time and in light of all the circumstances there existed reasonable

Michael Mays v. John Mahoney, Hearing Officer for Disciplinary Hearing at the Sing Sing Correctional Facility

23 F.3d 660 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 29, 1994

The report also stated that Mahoney had not proven that he was entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct might have fallen within the exception for clearly established constitutional rights. … He further contends that Mahoney is not protected from liability by qualified immunity as a prison official. II.

Hardy W. Ryland and Alma Odessa Ryland v. Alfred B. Shapiro, Edwin O. Ware and Edward E. Roberts, Jr.

708 F.2d 967 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 5, 1983

Instead, we held that, under certain conditions, a prosecutor may be entitled to qualified immunity. Id. … Finally, *976 should the court conclude that these defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, it should then determine whether their actions “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Turf Paradise, Inc., an Arizona Corporation v. Arizona Downs, an Arizona Corporation

670 F.2d 813 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 26, 1982

Accord, Community Builders, 652 F.2d at 828 . 7 The Supreme Court established two conditions that must exist before the exemption can apply: “First, the challenged restraint must be ‘one clearly articulated and affirmatively … Turf admits that the Arizona Legislature has clearly evidenced a policy to limit the number of days allowed for horse racing and that those days be allocated to the most qualified.

Green v. Henley

924 F.2d 185 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 25, 1991

In addition, the court held defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages. … immunity, and injunctive relief was warranted.

Hartline v. Gallo

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 8, 2008

She further contends 23 that because the strip search violated clearly established law, the individual officers are not 24 entitled to qualified immunity, and that because the search was conducted pursuant to municipal … She argues that because the strip search 7 violated clearly established law, the officers responsible for the search are not entitled to 8 qualified immunity, and that because the search was conducted pursuant to

Simon v. City of New York

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 21, 2018

We conclude that, with the facts taken in the light most  favorable to Simon, the defendants violated Simon’s clearly established Fourth  Amendment rights and are therefore not entitled to qualified immunity.  … 26  entitled to qualified immunity. 

Hill v. Shobe

93 F.3d 418 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 23, 1996

We note that the district court certified for interlocutory appeal only its decision on qualified immunity. … To determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, however, we must determine whether he violated a clearly established constitutional right at the time he took his action. Montville v.

69 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 1505, 67 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,891 Wilfred Waylon Jackson v. City of Atlanta, Tx., Jim Long, Individually and in His Capacity as City Manager

73 F.3d 60 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 24, 1996

grounds for denying a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity: "(a) a determination about pre-existing 'clearly established' law, or (b) a determination about 'genuine' issues of fact for trial." 9 The Court … a violation of clearly established law.

A.M. v. Holmes

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 25, 2016

We elect to reach only the clearly-established-law question—that is, the second prong of the qualified-immunity standard. … as the clearly established law that defeats a qualified-immunity defense.

Jones v. King

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 1, 2025

“It is well established that judges enjoy absolute immunity for judicial acts performed in judicial proceedings.” 5 Indeed, “immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly.” 6 There are … The officials’ appeal concerns judicial immunity for presiding over the jury proceeding. Plaintiffs’ cross- appeal concerns judicial, quasi-judicial, and qualified immunity for actions related to contempt orders.

Donald Todd v. Kathleen Hawk, Director, Bureau of Prisons

72 F.3d 443 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 2, 1995

PER CURIAM: Donald Todd appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights suit on grounds of qualified immunity. We reverse and remand. I. … Second, the court may, in its discretion, insist that a plaintiff file a reply tailored to an answer pleading the defense of qualified immunity.