Case law

Akande v. Grounds

555 F.3d 586 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 9, 2009

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.

Rogers v. Pendleton

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 9, 2001

While a consensus of cases of persuasive authority may clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes, the inverse is also true: if there are no cases of controlling authority in the jurisdiction in question, and … if other appellate federal courts have split on the question of whether an asserted right exists, the right cannot be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.

EVANS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 5, 2026

right was clearly established at the time of the violation. … the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established right.”

Jazmine Bryant v. Bill Hensley

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 19, 2024

In Hunter and Payne’s view, that response failed to argue that qualified immunity did not apply to them. True, Bryant’s estate bears the burden of showing that qualified immunity does not apply. See Blake v. … Edmonson County, 18 F.4th 516, 530 (6th Cir. 2021) (holding that the defendant acted in bad faith and was “not eligible for state qualified immunity” under Kentucky law because he violated the plaintiff’s “clearly established

Tashonda Troupe v. St. Louis County, Missouri

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 11, 2025

“A public official is entitled to qualified immunity unless: (1) their conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established.” Davis v. Buchanan Cnty., 11 F.4th 604, 623 (8th Cir. 2021). … “Qualified immunity is ‘appropriate where no reasonable fact finder could conclude that the facts when viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff show that the officers’ conduct violated a clearly established constitutional

Bunting v. Mellen

541 U.S. 1019 · Supreme Court of the United States · Apr 26, 2004

immunity. … The Court of Appeals concluded that Bunting is entitled to qualified immunity, id., at 376, and respondents have not challenged that ruling.

Pritzker v. City of Hudson

26 F. Supp. 2d 433 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 30, 1998

Qualified Immunity Defendants claim that, even if plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of malicious prosecution, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “Even where a right is clearly established, an official is entitled to qualified immunity nevertheless if ‘it was objectively reasonable for the public official to believe that his acts did not violate th[at] right[ ].’ ”

Morales v. Chadbourne

793 F.3d 208 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 17, 2015

Donaghy argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity on Morales's Fourth Amendment claim because the law was not clearly established in 2009 that an ICE agent was required to have probable cause before issuing a detainer … For the reasons stated above, we affirm the district court's denial of qualified immunity on Morales's Fourth Amendment claim against Donaghy on the ground that the law was clearly established in 2009 that an ICE agent

Farag v. United States

587 F. Supp. 2d 436 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 24, 2008

the defense of qualified immunity, which “shields government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “As a general rule, police officers are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did

Lipkin

District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 31, 2026

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” City of Escondido v. … Moreover, in the First Amendment context, the Second Circuit has recognized that qualified immunity is not available where (1) “specific intent of a defendant is an element of plaintiff’s claim under clearly established

White v. City Of Markham

310 F.3d 989 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 13, 2002

Qualified Immunity 7 The plaintiffs contend that the district court erred in dismissing the claims against Officer Muldrow and Chief Lymore based on qualified immunity. … The plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing the existence of a clearly established constitutional right. See Rakovich v.

Jamal Murray v. State of Ohio Dep't of Corrections

29 F.4th 779 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 30, 2022

motion is based on a claim of qualified immunity.” … Heyd is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law We now consider the merits of the qualified-immunity defense.

Thunderhawk v. Morton, County of, North Dakota

District Court, D. North Dakota · Nov 6, 2023

established prong of qualified immunity under the circumstances of this case. … Plaintiffs have failed to provide a factually similar case sufficient to support the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

McCollum v. Drewitz

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Oct 3, 2022

qualified immunity from suits for damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … immunity” because the law at the time did not clearly establish that his doing so violated McCollum’s rights.

Vinzant v. King

464 U.S. 965 · Supreme Court of the United States · Nov 7, 1983

Deputy J.K. Maston v. Thomas Jefferson Wagner

236 W. Va. 488 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 10, 2015

the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known.”).9 A public officer is entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts, even if committed negligently … A litigant may pierce the shield of qualified immunity by showing that a government official has violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

In re Masterson

503 S.W.3d 412 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 15, 2016

(explaining that “ ‘an 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’ ”) (quoting In … Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex.Crim.App.2013)), ■ To establish the second of the two requirements for obtaining a writ of prohibition, a relator must demonstrate the absence of an adequate remedy at law.

Lewis v. City of Burnsville

District Court, D. Minnesota · Oct 31, 2019

Therefore, at minimum, Frascone has qualified immunity. See Brown v. … City of Golden Valley, 574 F.3d 491, 496 (8th Cir. 2009) (explaining that to defeat qualified immunity, a plaintiff most show both the existence of a right and that the right was clearly established at the time of the

Robinson v. Beaumont

291 Ark. 477 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 16, 1987

This immunity is guaranteed so long as the actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the complaint fails to state a claim of violation of clearly established law the defense of qualified immunity is appropriate and the suit should not be allowed to proceed.

Lewis v. Tripp

604 F.3d 1221 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 17, 2010

Lewis’s clearly established rights. … Lewis hasn’t demonstrated a constitutional violation, let alone a clearly established one.