Case law

Arthur Clark Melissa Clark v. Earl Link R.E. Combs, and Charles Britt Fredrickia Britt Frank Stanley

855 F.2d 156 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 16, 1988

Since the issue in this appeal is the validity of the deputies’ plea of qualified immunity, we consider first the principles governing qualified immunity. We take it as clearly established that under Malley v. … by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.

Admiral Insurance v. United States District Court for the District of Arizona

881 F.2d 1486 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 9, 1989

Based upon established principles underlying the nature and purpose of the attorney-client privilege, we hold that the district court’s ruling is clearly incorrect and results in an unwarranted extension of the law. … The work-product rule is not a privilege but a qualified immunity protecting from discovery documents and tangible things prepared by a party or his representative in anticipation of litigation. Fed. R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3).

Nikos Kidis v. Jean Reid

976 F.3d 708 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 25, 2020

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (holding that government officials are generally entitled to immunity from civil damages as long as they did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights”); see … ] from raising the qualified immunity defense on appeal from a final judgment.”).

Davis v. City of Covington

District Court, E.D. Kentucky · May 13, 2024

Under federal law, “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity insulates public officials from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless the caselaw existing at the time of their actions clearly established that they violated the … And as a matter of law, Lusardi is entitled to qualified immunity regarding this use of force because Davis has again failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that Lusardi’s conduct was clearly established as having

THOMPKINS v. MCKEESPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2025

A police officer, as a government official, is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 suit unless the officer’s conduct violates a plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights or they were plainly incompetent … defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.”).

Eric Morillo v. Monmouth County Sheriff's

222 N.J. 104 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 13, 2015

Qualified immunity shields officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Ed. 2d at 866- 67 (reiterating that qualified immunity protects public officials from suit for violations of clearly established statutory or constitutional rights unless action was plainly incompetent or knowing violation

Mancuso v. Douglas Elliman, LLC

808 F. Supp. 2d 606 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 24, 2011

When analyzing this prong of a prima facie case, courts have used as a starting point the applicable criteria that the owner has established regarding who is “qualified.” … Other cases, including some cited by plaintiffs, have also used relevant criteria that the owner established in analyzing the “qualified” prong. See, e.g., Mencer v.

Jones v. Pollard

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 9, 2022

“Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages 21 unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 22 which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Second, 27 the Court must determine whether the right was clearly established.

Rosa v. Bonk

District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 19, 2024

“The law is clearly established when a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision is on point, [though the decision need not be precisely on point] or if the clearly established weight of authority from other courts shows … Second, “the plaintiff must show that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged unlawful activity.” Id. The Court may examine the two prongs of qualified immunity in either order. Pearson v.

Karen Burns v. David Loranger

907 F.2d 233 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 29, 1990

Thus, appellate assessment of a qualified immunity claim is apportioned into two analytic components. … Clearly Established Law At the time of the constitutional violation asserted in the present case, clearly established fourth amendment law entitled Burns to be free from any unreasonable search of her person.

Hall v. Tollett

128 F.3d 418 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 22, 1997

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Whether the government official “is protected by qualified immunity turns on ‘the objective legal reasonableness’ of the action, assessed in the light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time the action

Martinez v. City of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 19, 2023

Defendants further argued that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim, both because there exists no clearly established law that a failure to provide medical attention for Plaintiff’s asserted injury rises … The relevant case law need not be factually identical to the case at issue in order to be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity, and officials “can still be on notice that their conduct violates established

Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 29, 2012

Second, we must ask “whether the right was clearly estab- lished.” Id. A right is clearly established if “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” … Only when an officer’s conduct violates a clearly established constitu- tional right—when the officer should have known he was vio- lating the Constitution—does he forfeit qualified immunity.

Donovan v. Bel-Loc Diner

780 F.2d 1113 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 18, 1985

The evidence as a whole clearly suffices to establish the existence of a pattern or practice, at least as a "just and reasonable inference." … While, again, there was some evidence tending to show that some employees may not have been victims of the general pattern that was established prima facie, it clearly did not constitute the sort of evidence of precise work

Brick v. Estancia Municipal School District

District Court, D. New Mexico · Oct 20, 2020

violated a clearly established law. … However, the subjective good or bad faith of the actor is irrelevant to the question of whether a right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, which is an objective inquiry. Pompeo v.

Rueb

District Court, D. Colorado · Nov 5, 2025

Once the defense of qualified immunity has been raised, “the onus is on the plaintiff to demonstrate ‘(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” … The Tenth Circuit has explained the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis as follows: A clearly established right is one that is sufficiently

Alford v. Deffendoll

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jan 24, 2025

That case instructed, in pertinent part: Where a defendant moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must first11 identify a clearly established right alleged to have been violated … established right) when trying to overcome a qualified immunity defense asserted in the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

David Partington v. American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company

443 F.3d 334 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 30, 2006

Id. 18 Applying this "bright line" to the present case, we conclude that Congress did not clearly indicate that the failure of a plaintiff to qualify as a "person purchasing" was a jurisdictional limitation. … Arbaugh, 126 S.Ct. at 1245 n. 11 (citing statutes in which Congress clearly did limit jurisdiction on the basis of certain factors).

Masjid Muhammad-D.C.C. v. Keve

479 F. Supp. 1311 · District Court, D. Delaware · Oct 22, 1979

Patterson violated was not a “clearly established” right as that phrase has been used by the Supreme Court. … Navarette, and, as earlier noted, a public official who acts in good faith cannot be denied immunity under the teachings of that case in the absence of a clearly established constitutional right.

Stinde v. Schoenbeck

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 27, 2022

In general, qualified immunity shields “government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Walker, 865 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2017) (denying qualified immunity to jail staff who were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s risk of suicide, holding that qualified immunity need not be litigated and established disease