Case law

Kirstin Johnson v. Kierstie Barr

79 F.4th 996 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 6, 2023

the law did not clearly establish that probable cause was lacking. … law did not clearly establish that probable cause was lacking.

Fann v. Brailey

841 S.W.2d 833 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Jul 2, 1992

The Harlow court established an objective test to determine whether the state official enjoyed the qualified immunity: [Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil … have a clearly established right not to have information about her prior involvement with the law revealed to the public?”

Bell v. Luna

856 F. Supp. 2d 388 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 1, 2012

. § 1983 , and that they should in any case be granted qualified immunity, as Mr. Bell’s allegedly infringed rights were not ones clearly established at the time the actions took place. … The Second Circuit has not decided whether an unpublished summary order can serve to "clearly establish” the law for qualified immunity purposes. See David R.

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”).

Brian Yates v. Christopher Terry

817 F.3d 877 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 31, 2016

Qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability for civil damages, provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights within the knowledge … However, a right need not be “recognized by a court in a specific context before such right may be held ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity.”

Campbell v. Anderson

156 N.C. App. 371 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 4, 2003

of qualified immunity requires (1) identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determining whether at the time of the alleged violation the right was clearly established; and (3) if so, then determining … Plaintiff sufficiently identified specific rights clearly established at the time of the violation and has met the first two prongs. The third prong of the test may require a factual analysis. See Roberts v.

Danny W. TURNER v. Willie MOORE

76 So. 3d 842 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Jul 29, 2011

‘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 … [’] complaint fails to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Durso v. Taylor

624 A.2d 449 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 1993

“A plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official’s qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct … Qualified immunity: objective legal reasonableness. Even if Durso had violated Taylor’s right to due process, we hold that he had qualified immunity for his actions.

Beers v. Fouts, et al.

2018 DNH 045 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 7, 2018

In granting summary judgment in the defendants’ favor, the court found that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, in that, at the time of the pertinent group strip search, it was not clearly established … “Qualified immunity protects public officials from § 1983 suits for damages if their actions ‘d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Wetherbe v. Texas Tech University

138 F.4th 296 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 20, 2025

is qualified immunity. … However, “the ‘clearly established’ qualified immunity standard . . . . does not require that causation be clearly established,” 40 so we need not address element four.

John E. Green v. J. Kenneth Brantley, Edgar v. Lewis, Craig R. Smith, Garland P. Castleberry

941 F.2d 1146 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 12, 1991

The doctrine of qualified immunity affords immunity from suit to government officials performing discretionary functions as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … that make out violations of clearly established law.

Henry v. Purnell

619 F.3d 323 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 24, 2010

immunity defense based on whether the law is “clearly established” is a separate and required judicial action. 12 *337 The contours of that qualified immunity inquiry were laid out in Saucier. … Second, we have found no support for the proposition that a dissent may propound clearly established law for purposes of determining qualified immunity.

Kedra v. Schroeter

161 F. Supp. 3d 359 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2016

Under these circumstances, the vio-lative nature of Defendant’s alleged conduct has not been clearly established, and so Defendant is necessarily entitled to qualified immunity. IV. … at issue was clearly established.

Brian Pearson v. Tyler Eldridge

2022 DNH 039 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 28, 2022

Eldridge has moved for judgment on the pleadings based on qualified immunity. Because Eldridge has not established that qualified immunity shields him from suit, I deny the motion. I. … right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.’”

Brown v. Fortner

518 F.3d 552 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 4, 2008

The court further held that the right Fortner and Scott allegedly violated was clearly established and therefore concluded that Fortner and Scott were not entitled to qualified immunity. … Was the Right Violated Clearly Established? The second question in considering the denial of qualified immunity is whether the right violated was clearly established.

Easter v. Powell

467 F.3d 459 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 10, 2006

decide if the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law at the time of the incident.11 A government official is entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) the plaintiff failed … When a government official violates a constitutional right, the official is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity if his or her conduct is objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law.27 A law is “clearly

Term Auto Sales, Inc. v. City of Cleveland

996 F.2d 1217 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 28, 1993

II. 10 Defendants argue on appeal that they are entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs' § 1983 claim because Ohio law on the status of federal certification labels was not clearly established at the time of their … See Robinson, 840 F.2d at 351 (explaining that a question must be decided by the highest state court in the state where the case arose in order to be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity).

See v. City of Elyria

502 F.3d 484 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 19, 2007

by the defendant, the defendant’s actions violated clearly established law and are therefore not within the scope of the qualified immunity. … See has met his burden of establishing that Med-ders is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Smith v. Kansas City, Missouri Police Department

586 F.3d 576 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 9, 2009

. *580 Qualified immunity shields government actors from suit unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional or statutory rights that a reasonable person would have known. Henderson v. … was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.”

Ex parte B.T. Roberts, in his capacity as a member of the Auburn University Board of Trustees PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Patti H. Northcutt and Walter M. Northcutt v. B.T. Roberts, in his capacity as a member of the Auburn University Board of Trustees) (Lee Circuit Court: CV-22-900114).

Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 27, 2025

'To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must satisfy a two-prong test; he must show that: (1) the [public official] violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the … as follows: "To defeat Lawton's qualified immunity, Echols must also prove that Lawton violated a constitutional right that 'was "clearly established" at the time of the challenged conduct.'