Case law

Kauch v. Department for Children, Youth & Their Families

321 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 14, 2003

A three-part test is used to determine if an official is entitled to qualified immunity. First, a court considers whether "the plaintiff's allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation." … Second, we determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id.

Marvin Mead v. Charles Palmer

794 F.3d 932 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 24, 2015

In determining whether the defendants should receive qualified immunity, this court evaluates *936 (1) whether the facts alleged, construed in the light most favorable to [Mead], establish a violation of a constitutional … The district court denied qualified immunity to the nurse practitioners. Id.

Byrd v. Middletown Board of Education

District Court, D. Connecticut · Nov 22, 2024

Qualified immunity, however, can shield “employees from civil liability under §1983 if either (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was objectively … Defendants argue that because there is an “open question” as to the standard that applies to such speech, there is no “clearly established right,” and qualified immunity is warranted for Dr. Vázquez Matos.

Galloway v. County of Nassau

141 F.4th 417 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 26, 2025

While we have disapproved tactics used in the photo 29 identifications here, we need not decide whether they violated clearly 30 established law; Lipson’s qualified immunity defense fails in any 31 event because he … But that subjective intent—absent some future development in the case law—does not affect the qualified immunity analysis. The procedures here did not violate clearly established law for being unduly suggestive.

Fleming v. City of Bridgeport

92 Conn. App. 400 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Nov 29, 2005

Therefore, in reviewing . . . claims of qualified immunity we are bound by federal precedent, and may not expand or contract the contours of the immunity available to government officials.” … “Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Smith v. Haley

401 F. Supp. 2d 1240 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 1, 2005

(officials violated RLUIPA but entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a “clearly established” right); Williams v. Bitner, 359 F.Supp.2d 370 (M.D.Pa.2005) (Conner, J.) … In short, as long as their decision to deny Smith possession of the crystal was not contrary to clearly established law, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Harper v. Lawrence County, Ala.

592 F.3d 1227 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 6, 2010

Were Harper’s rights clearly established at the time? … Were Harper’s rights clearly established at the time?

Hanes v. Zurick

578 F.3d 491 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 18, 2009

that right was clearly established. … ” the court indicated that the right was clearly established.

Harvey v. Nichols

260 Ga. App. 187 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Feb 27, 2003

The doctrine of official immunity, also known as qualified immunity, offers public officers and employees limited protection from suit in their personal capacity. … Qualified immunity protects individual public agents from personal liability for discretionary actions taken within the scope of their official authority, and done without wilfulness, malice, or corruption.

J.H. v. West Virginia Division of Rehabilitation Services

224 W. Va. 147 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 27, 2009

Va.Code, 29-12A-1, et seq., 11 is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known. … Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

Haywood v. Alexander

121 So. 3d 972 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Feb 22, 2013

‘An official is entitled to qualified immunity if he is performing discretionary functions and his actions do “ ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Jenkins’s ‘complaint allege[s] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.’ Ex parte Alabama Department of Youth Services, 880 So.2d at 402 .

Peterson v. Bernardi

719 F. Supp. 2d 419 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 15, 2010

Clearly Established Second, was the constitutional right at issue clearly established? … If ever an area of law were not “clearly established”, this area was not. See Brandt v.

Wilson v. Maricopa County

484 F. Supp. 2d 1015 · District Court, D. Arizona · Dec 19, 2006

This right is clearly established. … Denial of Qualified Immunity on Summary Judgment.

Dorwart v. Caraway

312 Mont. 1 · Montana Supreme Court · Oct 30, 2002

established. … There we held that the law on which Dorwart relied in asserting his federal claim was not clearly established at the time that it was violated.

Felicia Dean v. Stephen McKinney

976 F.3d 407 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Oct 2, 2020

The doctrine of qualified immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity—controversial, contested, and binding—is a familiar rule. 1 The doctrine shields the officer from suit unless his conduct violated “clearly established … But in doing so, the Court recognized that there was no clearly established law at the time of the crash in 2014 and granted qualified immunity. Id.

Wilkins v. City of Oakland

350 F.3d 949 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 20, 2003

This general evaluation of the constitutionality of the alleged conduct, however, is not sufficient; we must also determine whether the actions alleged violate a clearly established constitutional right, where ‘clearly established … Even applying the step-by-step qualified immunity analysis outlined in Saucier, there is no question whether the officers’ actions in this case violated clearly established law. They did.

Frank Staples v. NH State Prison, Warden, et al.

2017 DNH 046 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 17, 2017

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from trial and monetary liability unless the pleaded facts establish ‘(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly … Defendants respond that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim both because Staples does not have a clearly established constitutionally protected liberty interest in any particular housing assignment and

A.N. v. Alamogordo Police Department

928 F.3d 1191 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 8, 2019

P. 12(b)(6) based on qualified immunity. … In other words, “[g]eneral statements of the law can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes if they apply with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question.”

United States v. May

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 23, 2005

The district court’s factual findings are upheld unless they are clearly erroneous, but its “legal conclusions as to the existence of probable cause are reviewed de novo.” United States v. … Greene, 250 F.3d 471, 480 (6th Cir. 2001) (“Sixth Circuit precedent clearly establishes that the affiant need only specify that the confidential informant has given accurate information in the past to qualify as reliable.

Weinstein v. City of North Bay Village

977 F. Supp. 2d 1271 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 26, 2013

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials acting within their discretionary authority are immune from suit unless the official’s conduct ‘violates clearly established federal statutory or constitutional … The Alleged Constitutional Violations Were Clearly Established For Weinstein to avoid qualified immunity, he must allege that Schwartz violated a clearly established law. See Keating, 598 F.3d at 762 .