Case law

Anderson v. Creighton

483 U.S. 635 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 25, 1987

action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. … As we noted before, Harlow clearly expressed the understanding that the general principle of qualified immunity it established would be applied “across the board.”

Gill v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 21, 2019

The manner in which courts are permitted to resolve qualified-immunity defenses protects from unnecessary constitutional conjecture: “[C]ourts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly … To begin, the named Marshals are clearly entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional questions in this case fall well short of being “clearly established.”

David Hopper v. Phil Plummer

887 F.3d 744 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 12, 2018

Qualified immunity shields public officials from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their actions violate clearly established rights “of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Derrick Bunkley v. City of Detroit, Mich.

902 F.3d 552 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 29, 2018

Qualified immunity shields government officials in the performance of discretionary functions from standing trial for civil liability unless their actions violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would … was clearly established.

Jack v. County of Stanislaus

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 14, 2020

Qualified Immunity 18 Qualified immunity applies when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established 19 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that Ninth Circuit 3 precedent is sufficient to meet the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity).

Thomas Hobgood v. Illinois Gaming Board

731 F.3d 635 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 16, 2013

Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu- tional rights of which a reasonable person would have … The defendants argue that they are immune because Hobgood did not have a clearly estab- lished right to deliver confidential information to Gnutek, but their argument is irrelevant to the issue of qualified immunity.

Spencer v. Pistorius

605 F. App'x 559 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 25, 2015

Beyond this, the court added, the undisputed evidence establishes that the two officers had acted reasonably and thus were entitled to qualified immunity. II. … As a fallback these defendants invoke qualified immunity, but their argument is feeble.

Barrett v. City of Pelahatchie, Mississippi

District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Mar 17, 2023

Unless the public official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, he is cloaked with qualified immunity. (citing Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)). … to “rebut this defense by establishing that the official's allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.”).

Hunter v. Smith

District Court, E.D. Texas · Aug 14, 2025

As plaintiff failed to present competent summary-judgment evidence showing that defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right, the magistrate judge found that defendants were entitled to qualified … Fite, 47 F.4th 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2022) (granting qualified immunity when plaintiff “fails to iden- tify a single case to support” a clearly established right (quotation marks omitted)).

Bowden v. Snider

District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 23, 2024

What is more, the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Cortesluna, 595 U.S. 1, 5 (2021) (A right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity “when it is sufficiently clear that every reasonable officer would have understood that what he is doing violates that

Ex Parte Juan Antonio Molina Valencia v. .

Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Apr 17, 2024

App. 2013) (“[A]n issue of first impression can sometimes qualify for mandamus relief when the factual scenario has never been precisely addressed but the principle of law has been clearly established.”). … ); Weeks, 391 S.W.3d at 122 (holding mandamus relief is available if “the principle of law has been clearly established”).

Pugh v. Mooney

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2024

Pugh also cites several cases discussing qualified immunity to argue that sovereign immunity does not apply. These cases are inapposite. Sovereign immunity and qualified immunity are distinct concepts. … Children & Youth Servs., 577 F.3d 186, 191 (3d Cir. 2009) (“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Scott v. Quigley

District Court, D. Nevada · Apr 29, 2025

While the Court decides 17 as a matter of law the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis, only 18 the jury can decide the disputed factual issues. See Morales v. … Cal. 25 2012) (police officer entitled to qualified immunity because constitutional informational 26 privacy right was not clearly established); O'Phelan v.

Butler v. Woods

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 28, 2022

Qualified Immunity. Finally, the defendants argue that Bellas and Woods are protected by qualified immunity. … Epps, 659 F.3d 440, 447 (Sth Cir. 2011) (analyzing, as part of qualified immunity, whether the defendant’s “failure to promulgate [a] policy was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law”).

Nunez v. Simms

341 F.3d 385 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 30, 2003

alleged the violation of a clearly established federal constitutional right. … The plaintiff's showing of a violation of a clearly established constitutional right is a “prerequisite” to overcoming the qualified immunity defense; failure to do so obviates the need to address the

Petrello v. City of Manchester, et al.

2017 DNH 053 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 21, 2017

of particular conduct is clearly established.’” … Officer Brandreth argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because any First Amendment right he allegedly violated was not clearly established at that time.

McKennon v. District Attorney's Office (Lawrenceburg, TN)

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · May 31, 2023

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the … unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.”

Lennox v. Miller

968 F.3d 150 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 29, 2020

Officers Miller and Clarke contend that because their actions did not violate “clearly established law,” the district court erred in denying them qualified immunity at this juncture. … “There are therefore two steps to the qualified immunity analysis: first, whether the plaintiff established that his constitutional rights were violated, and second, whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’

Kenneth L. Erickson v. United States of America Bryon Simon Douglas Hebert Kenneth Ingleby Charles Hill

976 F.2d 1299 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 7, 1992

In addition, the individually named defendants would be qualifiedly immune as there was no clearly established constitutional principle prohibiting the acts alleged by the plaintiff.” … We have divided the qualified immunity analysis into three inquiries: (1) the identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) the determination of whether that right was so “clearly established” as to alert a

Sueiro Vazquez v. Torregrosa De La Rosa

494 F.3d 227 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 19, 2007

clearly established rights of the plaintiffs. … For example, in Borges Colón, an advice of counsel defense failed to establish qualified immunity.