Case law

Jones v. Treubig

963 F.3d 214 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 26, 2020

The Qualified Immunity Standard Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Notwithstanding that the focus of this appeal is the use of a taser, not pepper spray, we have warned that “[a]n officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every

Froemming v. City of West Allis

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Feb 5, 2021

Qualified immunity provides government officials a shield from civil liability under § 1983 “insofar as their [discretionary] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … To defeat a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff need not point to a case that is 4Courts may exercise “their sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified-immunity analysis should be

Nelson v. City of Albuquerque

283 F. Supp. 3d 1048 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Oct 20, 2017

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis. … Additionally, Judge Black clearly erred by ruling that qualified immunity did not apply, because the law was not clearly established. 36 A.

Layland v. Stevens

171 P.3d 1070 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Dec 4, 2007

These undisputed facts establish that the Secret Service agents are entitled to qualified immunity. … Layland argues that Deputy Stevens is not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established and a reasonable officer would have known that entry onto Mr.

Elizabeth Schultz v. Lindsey Ercole, DO

District Court, W.D. Texas · Mar 22, 2022

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … In evaluating the qualified immunity defense, courts determine “whether (1) ‘the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right’; and [(2)], ‘whether the right was clearly established.’”

Walker v. Clearfield County District Attorney

413 F. App'x 481 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 24, 2011

The Supreme Court has held that when prosecutors perform investigatory functions, like determining whether there is probable cause to arrest a suspect, they are entitled only to qualified, and not absolute, immunity. … Thus, to the extent that Walker’s complaint concerns Shaw’s pre-indictment investigation of the allegations against Walker, Shaw is entitled only to qualified immunity.

Fitts v. Witkowski

920 F. Supp. 679 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Mar 28, 1996

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … As the foregoing analysis suggests, that issue is still not “clearly established.”

Anderson v. California Department of Correction

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 14, 2022

Qualified Immunity 21 Defendant Ferguson argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not 22 violate Plaintiff’s Eight Amendment rights and because it … To determine whether an 11 officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must consider whether (1) the officer’s conduct 12 violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time

Dr. Doe v. Board of Dental Practice

2026 ME 27 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 17, 2026

in their personal capacities are barred by qualified immunity. … The individual defendants are alternatively entitled to qualified immunity for the § 1983 claim because there was no clearly established right. [¶23] “Qualified immunity is meant to protect government officials

Koch v. City of Del City

660 F.3d 1228 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 2, 2011

established and thus the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. … We therefore do not need to reach the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity to conclude that the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Officer Beech. 4.

Young v. Gila Reg'l Med. Ctr.

495 P.3d 620 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 2020

(2) the right was clearly established at the time of the [alleged] conduct.” … Clearly Established {19} Having found that Plaintiff has established a constitutional violation, we turn next to the question of whether the law prohibiting the search was clearly established at the time it was conducted

Furlong v. Gardner

1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1302 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Mar 23, 1998

any clearly established right. … to support a violation of a clearly established law.”

Kristeen Foote v. Nancy Berryhill

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 10, 2019

The CDIU search violated the Fourth Amendment, but the violation was not egregious because the unconstitutionality of the search was not clearly established as of February 2015, and no evidence—including footage of the … McMullen, 907 F.3d 1139, 1152–53 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding that a similar search violated the Fourth Amendment, but granting qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that the conduct was unconstitutional

Dehn Motor Sales, LLC v. Schultz

439 Md. 460 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 22, 2014

But there’s enough that’s involved that it certainly raised it to qualified immunity, I mean to show that it was not clearly established. … established law, and therefore, were entitled to qualified immunity.

SUMMERVILLE v. NEW JERSEY STATE TROOPERS JOHN DOES 1-10

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 8, 2022

Gregory was entitled to qualified immunity for the initial stop, while holding that DSFC Ciano was entitled to qualified immunity. … The second prong of qualified immunity asks whether the right at issue was so clearly established that the officer should have known that he or she was committing a constitutional violation under the circumstances.

Kevin McCourt v. Miguel Angel Delgado

241 W. Va. 495 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 24, 2019

Under this standard, the petitioner officers contend they are entitled summary judgment based on qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights. … Under a qualified immunity analysis, we must determine whether the petitioner officers' alleged conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Bergquist v. Milazzo

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 28, 2021

In the absence of any clearly established precedent forbidding the officers from taking action under these circumstances, Defendants remain entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims. … Ways, 999 F.3d 478, 491 (7th Cir. 2021) (noting that a plaintiff overcoming a qualified immunity defense must show that the wrongfulness of the defendant’s conduct was clearly established).

Campbell v. Arizona, State of

District Court, D. Arizona · Feb 13, 2023

Cortez, 34 F.4th 783 (9th Cir. 2 2022) (granting motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity because plaintiffs failed to 3 show law was so clearly established that no reasonable person in defendants’ position could … To determine whether 21 qualified immunity applies, courts must consider whether (1) the government official 22 violated the plaintiff’s constitutional right and (2) whether that right was clearly established 23

United States v. John Hardimon

700 F.3d 940 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 7, 2012

The judge had already asked him whether he could think clearly, and he had said he could, which implies that he didn’t think his medications were affecting his ability to think clearly. … Not being a psychiatrist, the judge could not use dosage information to infer inability to think clearly.

Carr v. Scandrett

District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jul 30, 2025

“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 … However, general propositions may still be used to defeat qualified immunity in rare cases. , 843 F.3d at 484 (explaining that “a plaintiff may rely on a broader, clearly established principle that should control the