Case law

Franklin v. Johns

436 F. App'x 210 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 30, 2011

Gene Autrey Adams v. Paul Metiva

31 F.3d 375 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 1, 1994

The key inquiry in analyzing a claim of qualified immunity is whether the defendant’s alleged conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … First, the allegations must state a claim of the violation of clearly established law.

Heartland Academy Community Church v. Waddle

595 F.3d 798 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 8, 2010

Qualified Immunity: General Principles “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Qualified immunity is not only a defense to liability but also an immunity from suit.

Cosenza v. City of Worcester

355 F. Supp. 3d 81 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 2, 2019

Qualified Immunity Defendants similarly argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiff's malicious prosecution claims. … Defendants argue that the caselaw demonstrates Plaintiff's right was not clearly established and they are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Louis Gradisher v. City of Akron

794 F.3d 574 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 24, 2015

Whether a right has been clearly established should not be determined at “a high level of generality.” Id. at 2084. … City of Broadview Heights, 712 F.3d 951, 963 (6th Cir. 2013) (“Qualified immunity does not protect the officers here.

Oliver v. Fiorino

586 F.3d 898 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 26, 2009

Under this test, “the law is clearly established, and qualified immunity can be overcome, only if the standards set forth in Graham and our own case law inevitably lead every reasonable officer in [the defendant's] position … When measured against these facts, the officers violated a clearly established right. The district court properly rejected qualified immunity for Officers Burk and Fiorino. Accordingly, we affirm.

Knowlton Merritt v. John E. MacKey

827 F.2d 1368 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 16, 1987

Vincent and Mackey are not entitled to qualified immunity protection because their conduct exceeded the scope of their authority and because they violated Merritt’s clearly established constitutional rights. … When the law is clearly established, as here, the qualified immunity defense fails “since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.”

Roland Edger v. Krista McCabe

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 20, 2023

Hollowell, 59 F.3d 1203, 1206 (11th Cir. 1995) (explaining that the qualified immunity inquiry under “clearly established law” is whether there was “arguable probable cause”). … Where we part ways with the district court is on the issue of arguable probable cause or the “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Lyniece Nelson v. City of Madison Heights

845 F.3d 695 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 9, 2017

Page 6 “Government officials performing discretionary functions are afforded qualified immunity . . . as long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … However, Officer Wolowiec does not argue the interfamilial relations issue as a denial of qualified immunity.

Weaver v. Clarke

45 F.3d 1253 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 30, 1995

The parties’ briefs focus on the second step of our qualified immunity analysis— whether the right allegedly violated was “clearly established.” … CONCLUSION Because Weaver has alleged the violation of a clearly-established constitutional right, the defendant prison officials are not entitled to dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity.

Sylvester v. Sacramento County Sheriff

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 19, 2025

Rowlands, 606 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2010) (defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if his “‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Our rejection of qualified immunity on the pleadings does not preclude individual Defendants from asserting qualified immunity later, “[o]nce an evidentiary record has been developed through discovery.” O’Brien v.

Ricciuti v. Transit Authority

124 F.3d 123 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 21, 1997

To recover on that ground, of course, a plaintiff must still overcome the hurdle of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is unavailable where, as here, the action violates an accused's clearly established constitutional rights, and no reasonably competent police officer could believe otherwise. Anderson v.

Hicks v. Feeney

770 F.2d 375 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 26, 1985

Fauver, 544 F.Supp. 584, 607 (D.N.J.1982) (although legal principles clearly established, qualified immunity granted because specific question not yet resolved). … Thus, Feeney’s entitlement to qualified immunity hinges on whether it was clearly established that Hicks’s confinement after the initial 72-hour period violated his constitutional rights.

Locantore v. Hunt

775 F. Supp. 2d 680 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2011

require a conclusion that it was ‘clearly established’ in the qualified immunity context.” … Because it was not clearly established for qualified immunity purposes that to impose PRS administratively was unlawful prior to Earley , it must follow that it was also not clearly established that it was unlawful to do

William Evans v. Harry Vinson

427 F. App'x 437 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 29, 2011

Qualified Immunity Although the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to Evans establishes that Defendants violated Evans’s First and Fourth Amendment rights, Defendants may still be entitled to qualified … immunity if the constitutional rights at issue were not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

HILL v. McKINLEY

311 F.3d 899 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 26, 2002

a constitutional violation, we believe the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that their actions did not violate clearly established law. … More recently, the Supreme Court reiterated the test for determining whether the law was "clearly established" for the purpose of granting qualified immunity.

Bossio v. Taylor (INMATE 1)

District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 21, 2019

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009) (holding that courts can address the clearly established prong of qualified immunity analysis first). … Therefore, the law was not clearly established at the time of the action in question, and the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Belcher v.

Estate of Charles Chivrell v. City of Arcata

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 6, 2024

To determine if an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the 10 Court considers whether (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right 11 was clearly established at the time of the … See Perez, 98 F.4th at 928 (contravention of training would not 26 defeat qualified immunity because “the law did not clearly establish, nor did

Ray v. Washington State Department of Health and Human Services

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 17, 2025

qualified immunity. … Bd. of Regents of Nevada Sys. of Higher Educ., 616 20 F.3d 963, 969 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[W]e may begin the qualified immunity analysis by considering 21 whether there is a violation of clearly established law without

Ronda Rae Jones v. Steven Naert

121 F.4th 558 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 12, 2024

To overcome Officer Steven Naert’s qualified-immunity defense, Ronda Jones must show not just that Naert violated the Constitution but also that the existing law clearly established this violation. … Rather, I would jump straight to the second qualified-immunity element: Naert did not violate clearly established law by concluding that he had probable cause to arrest Jones. See Beck v.