Case law

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

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.”).

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.

Karen Hardy v. Broward Co. Sheriff's Office

238 F. App'x 435 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 6, 2007

established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” … As we concluded above, Appellants failed to establish that the Deputies violated clearly established constitutional law, and therefore, the Deputies are entitled to qualified immunity.

Farrar v. Worrell

District Court, W.D. Virginia · May 9, 2022

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability “so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Harris, 65 F.3d 347, 359-60 (4th Cir. 1995) (“If a plaintiff has alleged a clearly established right, summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is improper as long as there remains any material factual dispute

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.

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.

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

Livermore v. Lubelan

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 7, 2007

alleged by the plaintiff constitute a violation of clearly established law.”). … To defeat qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the defendant had notice that the manner in which the force was used had been previously proscribed: [T]here is no doubt that [precedent] clearly establishes

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

ESTATE OF

430 F.3d 140 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 30, 2005

Therefore, it is appropriate for us to rely on that decision in our analysis of whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity, as the contours of the right at issue here — as set forth in Sharrar — were "clearly … More specifically, the second question requires us to ask whether the right the defendant stands accused of violating was "clearly established" at the time of the incident in question.

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.

Martin v. City of Albuquerque

219 F. Supp. 3d 1081 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 9, 2015

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights *1086 of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Once the plaintiff has established the inference that the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, a qualified immunity defense generally fails. See Cannon 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

Willie H. Bozeman v. Silas Orum, III

422 F.3d 1265 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 31, 2005

Qualified Immunity. This Court decided in Johnson v. Breeden, 280 F.3d 1308, 1321-22 (11th Cir.2002), that, where this kind of excessive force violation is established, “there is no room for qualified immunity.” II. … Qualified Immunity.

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).