Case law

Millender v. County of L.A.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 6, 2009

Katz, 533 U.S. 194, outlined a two-step approach to qualified immunity. … I would affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity, and I respectfully dissent.

Burkhart v. Saxbe

596 F. Supp. 96 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 1984

Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” ... … No other “circumstances” are relevant to the issue of qualified immunity. We conclude that the District Court correctly held that appellee has demonstrated no violation of his clearly established constitutional rights.

ESTATE OF ANDRE ALEXANDER GREEN v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 13, 2019

Qualified immunity “[Q]ualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Dkt. 38 at 30.1 The Court exercises its discretion to begin with the second, “clearly established law” prong of the qualified-immunity test. See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. Mr.

Shabazz v. Dixon

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 27, 2019

Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664 (2012)(“[c]ourts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law, without resolving the often ore difficult … For a right to be “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes, “existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.”

Raden v. Fleming

District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 19, 2025

Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit when they perform “discretionary functions” and “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Scales v. District of Columbia

973 A.2d 722 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 2009

, ultimately holding that he was entitled to immunity because the allegations, taken as true, had “fail[ed] to establish that under the particular circumstances here [Officer] Young violated his clearly established Fomth … if the right was not clearly established at the time, the officer may still enjoy its protection.

Goard v. Crown Auto, Inc.

170 F. Supp. 3d 915 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 21, 2016

Defendants’ have failed to establish Qualified Immunity Howard, Ball, Cook, and McKinley assert that qualified immunity shields them from liability for their actions. Dkt. 28 at 4.. … established' for purposes of qualified immunity.

Daugevelo v. County Of Sullivan

District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 22, 2020

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects officials from liability for civil damages when, “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to … If an officer’s belief that his action does not violate clearly established law is “objectively reasonable,” he is shielded from liability by qualified immunity. Cooper v. City of New Rochelle, 925 F.

Dillon Burnett v. Josh Griffith

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 12, 2022

Whether Sergeant Griffith is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil-damages liability for violations of “clearly established statutory or constitutional … established” prong of the qualified-immunity analysis.

(PC) Melendez v. Diaz

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 2, 2024

The law is also “clearly established” for the purposes of qualified immunity 17 if “every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates th[e] right” at 18 issue. Taylor v. … In other words, the correctional 16 officer was entitled to qualified immunity if there was no clearly established right to properly 17 conducted security checks.

Artis v. Cyphers

100 Md. App. 633 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 8, 1994

The Mitchell Court continued, at 526, 105 S.Ct. at 2815 : “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified im *650 munity is entitled to dismissal before … judgment for the defendant on the ground that even under the defendant’s version of the facts the defendant’s conduct violated clearly established law, whether the law clearly proscribed the actions the defendant claims

Daniel Jackson v. Shawn Curry

888 F.3d 259 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 19, 2018

That decision itself does not involve a pure legal issue regarding qualified immunity, i.e., whether the officers violated Jackson’s clearly established constitutional rights. … plausibly violated clearly established rights.

Hughes v. City of Houston

District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 10, 2022

of qualified immunity. … The opinion further notes that qualified immunity should have been granted even if a constitutional violation had been pled because (1) “much more is needed” to demonstrate a clearly established law than for a court to

Fleming v. City of Bridgeport

284 Conn. 502 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Dec 4, 2007

clearly established law or (2) it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his actions did not violate clearly established law.” … The plaintiff contends that the municipal defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated clearly established law under the fourth amendment when they effected an unlawful seizure of her property by

(PC) Williams v. Pilkerten

District Court, E.D. California · May 13, 2020

Qualified 19 immunity shields government officials from civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly 20 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 21 Harlow … right, and if so, whether 28 the right was clearly established.

Kyle Petersen v. Anthony Sims, Jr.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 18, 2023

The district court properly dismissed Petersen’s action on the basis of qualified immunity because defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (government officials are entitled to qualified immunity where there is no violation of plaintiff’s constitutional right or the right at issue was not “clearly established” at the time

Doe v. Leach

128 N.M. 28 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 1999

The defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff demonstrates that the federal right so violated was a right “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. See Harlow v. … clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Hope v. Pelzer

536 U.S. 730 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 27, 2002

The Court of Appeals had assumed that the defendant in a criminal case was entitled to a degree of notice “ ‘substantially higher than the “clearly established” standard used to judge qualified immunity’ ” in civil cases … “[T]he object of the ‘clearly established’ immunity standard is not different from that of ‘fair warning’ as it relates to law ‘made specific’ for the purpose of validly applying § 242.

City of Lakewood v. Brace

20 Brief Times Rptr. 981 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Jun 24, 1996

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … immunity to appeal a district court’s denial of summary judgment on that defense if the issue on appeal is whether the constitutional right that was allegedly violated was “clearly established.”

Lavigne v. Forshee

307 Mich. App. 530 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 2014

“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 rights of which a reasonable person … Thus, in the case of a police officer, qualified immunity will not apply if the officer transgresses a right that was “clearly established,” when “‘it would be clear to a reasonable officer that [her] conduct was unlawful