Case law

Cindy L. Cameron and Lawrence M. Cameron v. James McCauley Seitz, Monroe County Probate Court

38 F.3d 264 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 21, 1994

Seitz is entitled to qualified immunity in the performance of official discretionary functions to the extent that his conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Flatford v. … The fact that the contours of such protection simply have not been clearly extended to engagements compels the con *276 elusion that qualified immunity is mandated here. 5 Because there were no clearly established constitutional

Abdulsalaam v. Franklin County Board of Commissioners

637 F. Supp. 2d 561 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 23, 2009

qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity on all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims.

Parker v. St. Stephen's Urban Dev.

243 N.J. Super. 317 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 24, 1990

That total figure is *321 prorated among the apartments to establish the "basic rent" for each unit. … Defendant clearly falls outside the scope of this definition. No benefactor whose charitable contributions require protection exists in this case.

James Raper, Jr. v. Tina Maxwell

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 10, 2023

Hickey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that qualified immunity … Roy, 847 F.3d 637, 641– 42 (8th Cir. 2017) (reviewing the failure to state a claim de novo and explaining that a right must be clearly established for an alleged violation to defeat qualified immunity).

BUSH v. RENEGAR

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2020

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity has long “protect[ed] government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity.”

Driever v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 19, 2020

Qualified immunity protects officials from suits unless their actions are (1) plainly incompetent, or (2) committed with knowledge of violation of clearly established law. See Malley v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 227 (2009) (finding that officials were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that their conduct was unconstitutional).

Henry Clash v. Michael Beatty

77 F.3d 1045 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 12, 1996

Beatty moved for summary judgment on the ground that he enjoys a qualified immunity from liability, because, even if he did what Clash described, those actions would not have violated any clearly established Fourth Amendment … When a defendant officer raises the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing the existence of the allegedly clearly established constitutional right. Rice v.

McClellan v. Smith

439 F.3d 137 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 24, 2006

In rejecting the claim that it misapplied the facts to the issue of qualified immunity, the District Court considered the following facts established: [McClellan] admitted that [Smith] identified himself as a police officer … Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity offers protection for “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Brown v. Callahan

623 F.3d 249 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 7, 2010

The qualified immunity defense has two prongs: whether an official’s conduct violated a constitutional right of the plaintiff; and whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Manis v. … To be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. Brown v.

James P. Kyricopoulos v. Town of Orleans

967 F.2d 14 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 18, 1992

immunity shielded the police officer who arrested appellant from liability for damages; and (3) absolute immunity protected this officer from liability for testimony given at the grand jury and at trial. … Because the district court clearly was correct in finding the police officer absolutely immune for testimony given at trial, see Briscoe v.

Guercio v. Brody

500 U.S. 904 · Supreme Court of the United States · Apr 29, 1991

Robert Walker v. Robert McClellan Superintendent, Thomas A. Coughlin, Iii, L. Bates, Hearing Officer

126 F.3d 127 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 9, 1997

Alternatively, the district court noted that dismissal was mandated on account of Bates’s right to qualified immunity because Walker had no clearly established right to call witnesses in his defense at the disciplinary hearing … Qualified immunity protects prison officials from personal liability under § 1983 when their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Osier v. Burlington Telecom

Vermont Superior Court · Oct 20, 2010

“‘Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’” … Phrased another way, the question of “clearly established law” in this case is as follows: (1) was it clearly established law that a government official must comply with a regulatory entity’s order such as the Certificate

Albero v. Worcester County Board of Commissioners

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 11, 2025

Elliott, 25 F.4th 227, 235 (4th Cir. 2022) (explaining that qualified immunity applies when either (1) a plaintiff fails to state a violation of a federal right or (2) a defendant shows the right was not clearly established … Having determined that Plaintiffs fail to state a violation of Arthur’s federal rights, there is no need for the Court to address, for qualified-immunity purposes, whether any such right was “clearly established” at the

Lewis v. Harrison School District No. 1

805 F.2d 310 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 13, 1986

Qualified Immunity The district court found that the individual board members and school officials could not be held liable under Harlow v. … Under Harlow and Mitchell the test for invoking qualified immunity is whether a defendant governmental official’s conduct violated “clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would

Burns v. County of Cambria

971 F.2d 1015 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 28, 1992

Finally, in considering the qualified immunity defense of the two Roberts defendants, the court held that they were not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. Id. II. Appellate Jurisdiction A. … Clearly Established Standard Roberts argues, however, that it was not clearly established at the time of these dismissals that deputy sheriffs, as distinguished from other public officials, were indeed protected under the

Palmer v. Sanderson

9 F.3d 1433 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 23, 1993

Qualified Immunity 11 Law enforcement officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) the "right" they allegedly violated was not "clearly established" at the time of the violation, or (2) if a reasonable … Sanderson and Morrisette argue that the district court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity because (1) the Fourth Amendment's protection against excessive force was not clearly established

Millet v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 13, 2025

Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 62–63 (2018) (“[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established … As noted, “officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

Walker v. Johnson

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 18, 2020

“Under the second prong, a government official is entitled to qualified immunity if the right at issue was not “clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 735. … cannot be considered in deciding whether particular conduct violated clearly established law for purposes of adjudging entitlement to qualified immunity”).

Cramer v. Bohinski

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2023

Alternatively, The defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the rights allegedly violated were not clearly established at the time of the violation. (Id.) … the right was clearly established.