Case law

Cruz v. City of Laramie

239 F.3d 1183 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 15, 2001

Clearly Established Law The district court also found, in applying the second part of the test, that the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established and that defendants acted unreasonably. … While the federal qualified immunity standard focuses on whether a right was clearly established such that the officers would know their conduct violated that right, state law immunity in Wyoming requires that the officers

David C. Skrtich v. Timothy Alvin Thornton

280 F.3d 1295 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 29, 2002

Qualified immunity protects government officials acting within their discretionary functions from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 615 , 119 S.Ct. 1692 , 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999) (" 'clearly established' ” for purposes of qualified immunity does not mean that “ 'an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very

Rivera v. Senkowski

62 F.3d 80 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 8, 1995

Finally, the district court rejected defendants’ defense of qualified immunity as to the retaliation claim since (1) the constitutional right against retaliation had been clearly established by 1990 and (2) defendants’ acts … Appellate Jurisdiction The affirmative defense of qualified immunity “shields public officials from liability for their discretionary acts that do ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Makin v. Colorado Department of Corrections

183 F.3d 1205 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 12, 1999

Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity because at the time of the relevant events, there was no clearly established law, that is, Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit authority, “which sets forth the parameters … City , 879 F.2d 706, 729 n.37 (10th Cir. 1989) (“[S]tructuring the inquiry [into what right must be clearly established] too narrowly would render the defense [of qualified immunity] available to all public officials except

Donald Morgan v. Michael Robinson

920 F.3d 521 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 29, 2019

“The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at 656. … Having established the facts in the summary judgment record, I now turn to the qualified immunity analysis.

Penn v. Escorsio

764 F.3d 102 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 22, 2014

established such that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … If the assumed facts indicated that they were merely inattentive or careless, then qualified immunity would shield them despite the fact that [they] violated [an inmates’s] clearly established rights.

Hamm v. Powell

874 F.2d 766 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 6, 1989

Nevertheless, they did not waive their right not to be held liable for conduct that did not violate clearly established law. *771 In Harlow , the Supreme Court reshaped the doctrine of qualified immunity and held that “government … Neither Johnson nor Gilmere involved a defense of qualified immunity. .

Easley

District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 16, 2026

“His response brief failed even to include the terms ‘qualified immunity’ or ‘clearly established.’” Id. … of establishing that the rights in question were clearly established at the time”).

HOOVER v. GREYHOUSE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 30, 2024

Hoover's right to meaningful review of his placement in segregation, it need not address their argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity. See Abbott v. … constitutional right was 'clearly established’ at the time of the official's alleged misconduct.").

LaBounty v. Coughlin

137 F.3d 68 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 13, 1998

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity is well established. … Where a right is clearly established, “the defendants may nonetheless establish immunity by showing that reasonable persons in their position would not have understood that their conduct was within the scope of the established

Backlund v. Barnhart

778 F.2d 1386 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 17, 1985

that those rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue. 23 See also Harlow v. … Davis extended the rule of qualified immunity to state officials. 104 S.Ct. at 3020 n. 12.

Doe v. Whelan

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 17, 2013

Such a state official is entitled to qualified immunity from actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson v. … Where the law is clearly established, “a caseworker is . . . entitled to qualified immunity if officers of reasonable competence could disagree on the legality of the action at issue in its particular factual context.”

Dale v. Kelley

908 F. Supp. 125 · District Court, W.D. New York · Dec 6, 1995

“Under qualified immunity, a government official may claim immunity from suit only when in light of clearly established law and the information the official possesses, it was objectively reasonable for him to think that his … One basis upon which a qualified immunity defense can be established is by showing that the right allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the acts in question.

Randall Martin v. Robert Goldsmith

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 31, 2025

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability to the extent that their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right to which a reasonable person would have known … To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, Martin must show (1) the defendants violated a constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. Doe v.

Shane Horton v. City of Santa Maria

915 F.3d 592 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 1, 2019

CITY OF SANTA MARIA to qualified immunity so that “[g]oing forward, . . . the law is clearly established in this scenario”). … We therefore confine our inquiry to the second qualified immunity prong — whether the constitutional right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. B.

Bentley v. Dennison

852 F. Supp. 2d 379 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 10, 2012

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects officials from liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 30 The Second … lower courts, and that therefore Earley’s holding was not clearly established, has been the linchpin of their continued success in obtaining qualified immunity.

Richey v. American Automobile Association, Inc.

380 Mass. 835 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jun 6, 1980

There may, indeed, be room for the observation that if the present facts should be held to qualify a discharged employee for relief, then a new practical definition might have to be given to employments theoretically terminable

James J. Giuffre v. Nicholas Bissell Richard Thornburg Robert Smith Russ Leffert Sam Debella Richard Meyers County of Somerset

31 F.3d 1241 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 4, 1994

It also ruled that none of the individual officials was entitled to qualified immunity because Giuffre had raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether any clearly established laws had been violated by the officials … The “clearly established” standard of Harlow was delineated by the Supreme Court in Anderson v.

Riggleman v. Clarke

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Sep 4, 2024

Amonette’s actions amounted to deliberate indifference and turn directly to … the clearly established prong of the qualified-immunity analysis.” 55 F.4th at 454. … The Fourth Circuit did not address whether the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity, or specifically the second step of the qualified immunity framework—whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the

Stearns v. Clarkson

615 F.3d 1278 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 13, 2010

Clearly Established Rights The district court correctly noted that the rights at issue in this case are clearly established. … Because the rights at issue in this case are clearly established, the defendants are only entitled to qualified immunity if, based on the facts as viewed in the light most favorable to Mr.