Case law

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

SINGH v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 2, 2023

Finally, the individual capacity claims fail on qualified immunity grounds because the Individual Defendants did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.”)

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.

J.P. v. D.P.

260 So. 3d 862 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Mar 30, 2018

App. 2008) ("Although these incidents were somewhat remote in time, they still evidence the character of the paternal grandmother and clearly and convincingly prove that she was not fit and qualified to receive and care for … App. 2012) (" ' "We should not equate the filing of 'court papers' and the taking of legal positions with the establishment of human relationships." ' [ Ex parte J.W.B. , 933 So.2d 1081 , 1092 (Ala. 2005) ](quoting K.W.J.

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.

Maldonado v. Fontanes

568 F.3d 263 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 4, 2009

It is clear from the Supreme Court's description of the second, "clearly established" step of the qualified immunity analysis that the second step, in turn, has two aspects. … These are principles of law, and the law was sufficiently recognized by courts to be clearly established. See Wilson v.

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.”

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.

United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga, Tennessee

768 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 18, 2014

An assertion of qualified immunity may be overcome if the defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right. … Accordingly, the seizure violated a clearly established Fourth Amendment right, and so Walsh is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. III.

Navarro v. Block

250 F.3d 729 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 11, 2001

After reviewing the legal standards for qualified immunity, the court held: [T]he law is not clearly established that a policy of indemnifying punitive damage awards violates constitutional rights.... … Though much of the analysis under qualified immunity and the merits of a § 1983 claim overlaps, the issue of whether a right is “clearly established” is relevant only to qualified immunity.