Case law

Robert Reese, Jr. v. County of Sacramento

888 F.3d 1030 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 23, 2018

Rose’s entitlement to qualified immunity therefore turns on whether Reese’s right was clearly established at the time of the incident in 2011. … Ct. at 310 (quotation marks omitted).1 Absent a showing by Reese that the right was clearly established at the time, Rose is entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment excessive force claim.

Solis v. Serrett

31 F.4th 975 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 21, 2022

“Qualified immunity shields public officials sued in their individual capacities from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “The qualified immunity inquiry includes two parts.

Reece v. Groose

60 F.3d 487 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 20, 1995

was clearly established. … We also held that Anderson was not entitled to qualified immunity, because the right allegedly violated, freedom from unreasonable searches, was clearly established.

Colbruno v. Kessler

928 F.3d 1155 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 2, 2019

"Because qualified immunity establishes immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability, a district court's denial of a claim of qualified immunity is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ." Id. … Qualified Immunity There remains the question whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Was the law clearly established that their conduct (as alleged by Plaintiff) violated the Fourteenth Amendment?

Shelly Ioane v. Jean Noll

903 F.3d 929 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 10, 2018

Clearly Established The second part of the qualified immunity test requires us to determine whether, at the time of Agent Noll’s actions in June 2006, the law was clearly established. … But the existence of a constitutional violation alone is insufficient to deny qualified immunity—we must find that the right at issue was “clearly established.”

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?

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.

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.

Rodriguez v. Tisch

688 F. Supp. 1530 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 19, 1988

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 … “Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of a clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell v.

Moody v. City of Key West

805 So. 2d 1018 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 26, 2001

In order for the plaintiffs to overcome the claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiffs must show that the defendant officers violated clearly established law of *1022 which a reasonable person would have known. … As the case law has explained: For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it

Schlicher v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners

363 Ill. App. 3d 869 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 6, 2006

The Supreme Court has explained the concept of a “clearly established” constitutional right in the context of a qualified immunity claim as follows: “ ‘[Cjlearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that … Because “it is well established that the qualified immunity doctrine does not apply to official capacity claims” (Ruffino v.

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.