Case law

Shirk v. Forsmark

272 P.3d 1118 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jan 5, 2012

Qualified immunity is immunity from suit, not a mere defense to liability. Id. … To overcome a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must plead a constitutional violation, and the constitutional right allegedly violated must have been "clearly established" at the time of the action in question.

Rufus West v. Gregory Grams

607 F. App'x 561 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 22, 2015

immunity. … It has never been clearly established that inmates have a right to inmate-led group worship under the First Amendment.

Russell v. Coyle

266 N.J. Super. 651 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 4, 1993

Extant caselaw establishes that qualified immunity should shield Trooper Coyle from suit for damages if "a reasonable officer could have believed [Trooper Coyle's] warrantless search to be lawful, in light of clearly established … As noted, with respect to qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that the defendant violated some clearly established right. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 , 73 L.Ed. 2d at 410 .

Estate of Jaime Ceballos v. Husk

919 F.3d 1204 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 26, 2019

to qualified immunity. *1213 Medina v. … Here, the district court denied Officer Husk qualified immunity, ruling that Ceballos had stated a clearly established Fourth Amendment violation and that there were genuinely disputed issues of material fact that precluded

Spruytte v. Owens

190 Mich. App. 127 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 1991

Regarding the immunity question, it is clear that Rule 791.6637(4) was a clearly established state regulation, violation of which is sufficient to cause officials to forfeit their qualified immunity. … Because the officials violated that rule and the rule was clearly established at the time of the violation, the officials are not entitled to immunity.

Tom Heaney v. Christopher Roberts

846 F.3d 795 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 23, 2017

Black is entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim because his actions as sergeant-at-arms were not objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. We affirm on that claim. D. … But an officer is only denied qualified immunity if his or her actions are objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. See, e.g., Blackwell v.

James P. Crocker v. Deputy Sheriff Steven Eric Beatty

886 F.3d 1132 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 2, 2018

Rights may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes by one of three methods: (1) “case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional right,” (2) “a broad statement of principle within … We further determine that these rights were clearly established at the time of the seizure such that Beatty is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Point Properties, Inc. v. Anderson

584 So. 2d 1332 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 14, 1991

Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 800 , 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), established the following test for determining whether a public official can claim qualified immunity: '[G]overnment officials . . . generally … . * If the law that the defendants allegedly violated was not clearly established, then the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See Daniel v.

Humble

District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 14, 2026

in light of clearly established law. … at 502 (holding that defendants failed to establish qualified immunity).

Sheppard v. Beerman

911 F. Supp. 606 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 20, 1995

In the Second Circuit, law is normally “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes when there is a United States Supreme Court or circuit court ruling on point. See Richardson v. … ’s dismissal established the violation of a “clearly established” right.

Mierzwa v. City of Garfield

170 F. App'x 212 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 19, 2005

Finally, the Court found that because the State is immune from liability under § 1983, the Mierzwas’ due process claim lacks merit. … In addition, the individual Garfield defendants (police and prosecutor) enjoy qualified immunity as their conduct in investigating the incident between Edward and Thomas did not violate clearly established constitutional

West Virginia Department of Human Resources v. A.R.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 5, 2024

When dealing with broad rights, the plaintiff bears the burden of particularizing such a right before those rights are subject to the qualified immunity test of being clearly established. … Were it otherwise, allegations like A.R’s would “grossly oversimplif[y], and frankly nullif[y],” that step of the qualified immunity analysis pertaining to the violation of clearly established statutory or constitutional

Pagan-Gonzalez v. Moreno

919 F.3d 582 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 22, 2019

"[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was 'clearly established at the time.' " Dist. of … Qualified Immunity Having concluded that the search as alleged violated the Constitution, we turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry: whether the unlawfulness of the agents' conduct was clearly established

Taylor

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jun 8, 2026

that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … What remains, then, is the second prong: whether the relevant rights were clearly established.

Henderson v. Glanz

813 F.3d 938 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 28, 2015

The defendants do not challenge the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity standard, other than in a single sentence stating that “Plaintiff failed to show that the Sheriff violated a clearly … Henderson has not carried her burden of establishing he violated a constitutional right that was clearly established, we conclude the district court erred in holding he is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Bishop v. Boyer

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 26, 2025

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages in situations in which their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … As the Seventh Circuit has explained: [A] right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes if its contours were sufficiently definite that

Lane v. First National Bank of Boston

687 F. Supp. 11 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 19, 1988

The meaning of “clearly established law” in the context of qualified immunity has been analyzed by the First Circuit in several cases, and in a recent decision the Court stated that, “in assessing a claim of qualified immunity … that the district attorney was entitled to qualified immunity.

David Andrews v. Robert Scuilli

853 F.3d 690 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 10, 2017

If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity. … This leaves us with the question of whether the rights at issue were clearly established at the time.18 We need not dwell on this.

United States v. Lopez

147 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 16, 1998

Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979), the Court established the requirements for attacking the composition of a jury: In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show … It clearly did not deprive him of a fair trial. Defense counsel was able to cope effectively with the shortened period of preparation.

Santiago v. Leik

179 Wis. 2d 786 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Oct 28, 1993

Thus, if at the time the challenged act occurred the law identifying the act as a constitutional violation was not clearly established, qualified immunity protects the official from suit. … The Barnhill court noted that confusion regarding qualified immunity "derives from the level of generality that should be afforded to 'clearly established law' at the time of the alleged unlawful act."