Case law

Naumovski v. Norris

934 F.3d 200 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 12, 2019

Qualified Immunity A government official is entitled to immunity from suit whenever (1) his conduct “did not violate clearly established law,” or (2) “it was objectively reasonable for [the official] to believe that … Because Naumovski has failed to produce evidence that could establish that Defendants themselves clearly violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights, Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity

Amore v. Novarro

624 F.3d 522 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 22, 2010

Government officials are entitled to 2 qualified immunity "insofar as their conduct does not violate 3 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a 4 reasonable person would have known." … Ct. at 813 ("We now hold that the Saucier procedure should not be regarded as an inflexible requirement and that petitioners are entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that it was not clearly established

Doe v. Hennepin County

858 F.2d 1325 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 6, 1988

immunity. … This claim is barred by qualified immunity unless evidence of malice or improper motives on the part of defendants is proved. Myers, 810 F.2d at 1457 .

Andrews v. Crump

144 N.C. App. 68 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 5, 2001

They may, however, raise the defense of qualified immunity to section 1983 claims. Id. … 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

Shoemaker v. Smith

353 Md. 143 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 10, 1999

'abstract issu[e] of law’ relating to qualified immunity ... … —typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was 'clearly established. ..

The West Virginia State Police, Department of Military Affairs v. J.H., a Minor, by and through His Parent and Next Friend, L.D.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 26, 2021

it violated a clearly established law or right in performing its discretionary functions. … Next, we must move forward in the qualified immunity analysis and determine whether J.H. has alleged that the acts of the Trooper Defendants were in violation of clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or

Primus

District Court, D. South Carolina · Feb 17, 2026

Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant in her individual capacity is further barred by qualified immunity as Plaintiff has not stated a constitutional violation. Harlow v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (noting that qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damage suits as long as the conduct in question does not “violate clearly

Attocknie Ex Rel. M.P. v. Smith

798 F.3d 1252 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 24, 2015

Cherry’s entry of Aaron’s home was clearly contrary to well-established law. He is not entitled to qualified immunity on the claim of unlawful entry. … It then summarizes his view of the law of qualified immunity but concludes that “[t]he second stage of qualified immunity analysis, whether a right was ‘clearly established’ need not even be performed, as Defendant Smith

Villarreal v. City of Laredo

134 F.4th 273 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 8, 2025

Ct. 2088, 2093 (2012) (qualified immunity applies unless officials “violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct”). … The qualified immunity inquiry asks whether an officer “violate[d] clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818.

James Rieves v. Town of Smyrna, Tenn.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 15, 2020

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil suits for damages, so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … On a general level, “[i]t is clearly established that an arrest without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment.” Crockett v.

Ansley v. Heinrich

925 F.2d 1339 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 11, 1991

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity protects public officials, acting within the scope of their discretionary authority and under clearly established law, from insubstantial lawsuits. Butz v. … In Harlow , the Supreme Court stated that the immunity defense should fail if the law governing the official’s actions has been clearly established.

Henson v. Foster

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Feb 10, 2023

Qualified immunity “shields [a] government official from liability in a section 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known.” Brown v. … of whether the detainees rights were clearly established). 2.

Rogerson v. Fitzpatrick

170 N.C. App. 387 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 17, 2005

Forsyth, for support of the proposition that when a court looks at qualified immunity, "[a]ll it need determine is a question of law." … Likewise, this Court has concluded that when ruling on the defense of qualified immunity, we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established

Hernandez Carrasquillo v. Rivera Rodriguez

281 F. Supp. 2d 329 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 2, 2003

; 2) if it does, was the constitutional right clearly established at the time of the facts alleged in the complaint? … Furthermore, we find that they may be enough to establish the reckless disregard of a clearly established constitutional right necessary to overcome Defendants’ qualified immunity.

Barnthouse v. City of Edmond

74 O.B.A.J. 1297 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 22, 2003

Material issues of fact for a jury exist as to: (1) whether Cochran violated Appellants' clearly established constitutional rights for purposes of his individual qualified immunity defense to the § 1988 claim; and (@)whether … Whether Cochran is entitled to qualified immunity where his conduct violated Appellants' right to due process (a constitutional right), and that right was violated by Cochran when it was clearly established at the time of

McClelland v. Katy Indep Sch Dist

63 F.4th 996 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 31, 2023

Whether McClelland’s free speech rights were clearly established “A Government official’s conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time of the challenged conduct, ‘[t]he contours … established so as to defeat qualified immunity for Hull. 2.

Depaul Industries v. Benjamin Miller

14 F.4th 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 28, 2021

MILLER DISCUSSION Miller is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … CONCLUSION Miller is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate DePaul’s clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

McKally v. Perez

87 F. Supp. 3d 1310 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 6, 2015

Once the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is asserted, “unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before … Alvereze, 498 Fed.Appx. 867, 872 (11th Cir.2012) (noting “a defense of qualified immunity may be addressed in a motion to dismiss, which will be granted if the complaint.fails to allege the violation of a clearly established

Romer v. Morgenthau

119 F. Supp. 2d 346 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 26, 2000

absolute or qualified immunity. … See discussion supra; Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 (allowing qualified immunity if defendant “does not violate clearly established” rights of which “a reasonable person would have known”).

Charles Jackson v. Billy D. Stair, III

944 F.3d 704 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 3, 2019

If so, qualified immunity does not shield the officer from liability if the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation. … Officer Stair argues that qualified immunity shields him from any potential liability related to the second tasing because Jackson did not have a clearly established right to excessive force at the time.