Case law

Stephen G. Loftus v. Ester Clark-Moore

690 F.3d 1200 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 13, 2012

The district court ruled that Clark-Moore and Ferguson were entitled to qualified immunity because neither social worker had violated a clearly established federal right of Loftus or his children. … Ferguson is entitled to qualified immunity because the threats that she allegedly made did not violate any clearly established federal right.

Miller v. City of Philadelphia

954 F. Supp. 1056 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 1997

Defendants further claim that Scheer has qualified immunity under § 1983 because he did not violate a clearly established constitutional right held by plaintiffs. i. … (holding standards for interviewing children that had allegedly been sexually abused not clearly established and defendants were entitled to qualified immunity), cer t. denied, 484 U.S. 828 , 108 S.Ct. 97 , 98 L.Ed.2d 58

Noonan v. Kane

305 F. Supp. 3d 587 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2018

It determined that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity since he did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Id. at 572 . … established for the purpose of qualified immunity.

Covert v. Kelley

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 27, 2023

were entitled to qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established). … The Eighth Circuit has described the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity as follows: Qualified immunity shields a government official from suit

Priester v. City of Riviera Beach

208 F.3d 919 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 4, 2000

Judgment as a Matter of Law—Qualified Immunity 1. … Qualified immunity protects 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

Ondrey v. Patterson

884 So. 2d 50 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 27, 2004

Thus, we must determine whether Ondrey has established that the trial court's order constitutes "a violation of a clearly established principle of law that resulted in a miscarriage of justice." Allstate Ins. Co. v. … Qualified immunity applies in situations where the official's conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v.

Sweatman v. Giles

161 So. 3d 212 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Apr 19, 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 … [’] complaint fails to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Estate of Christopher J. Davis v. Juan Ortiz

987 F.3d 635 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 5, 2021

Ortiz has appealed from the denial of qualified immunity. … , and (2) that the unlaw- fulness of the conduct was clearly established at the time the officer acted.

GROSSMAN v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2022

immunity. … Cir. 2012) (court conducting qualified immunity analysis looks to “(1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff show the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time

Laguerre v. Nevada System of Higher Education

837 F. Supp. 2d 1176 · District Court, D. Nevada · Aug 5, 2011

This grant of immunity is available to state or federal employees performing discretionary functions where their actions, even if later found to be unlawful, did not violate clearly established law. Harlow v. … With respect to a qualified immunity claim, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the right claimed was clearly established. Baker v. Racansky, 887 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir.1989).

Holcomb v. McCraw

262 F. Supp. 3d 437 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Jun 27, 2017

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions” from civil liability for claims under federal law “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Even if an official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is “nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable.” Wallace v.

Bettio v. Village of Northfield

775 F. Supp. 1545 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 18, 1991

asserted is clearly established. … As such, there being no clearly established right in existence as to this portion of the claim, Satola and Varga do not lose the protection of qualified immunity here.

Spinelli v. Byars

District Court, D. Colorado · Oct 7, 2025

As Imbler and its progeny establish, absolute prosecutorial immunity is intended to protect the judicial process, not the prosecutor. See Briscoe v. … App'x at 705 (discerning no absolute immunity where prosecutors allegedly fabricated evidence “for the purpose of establishing probable cause”).

Carter v. Beebe

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 22, 2026

This argument may have merit on the first step of qualified immunity analysis—constitutional violation, but not the second—clearly established law. Mr. … that Chief Beebe violated clearly established constitutional law, Chief Beebe is entitled to qualified immunity on Mr.

Meals v. City of Memphis, Tennessee

493 F.3d 720 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 11, 2007

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 … If the plaintiff fails to establish any one of these elements, qualified immunity must be granted. Radvansky v.

Eng v. Cooley

552 F.3d 1062 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 14, 2009

If a plaintiffs constitutional rights were not clearly established at the time of the violation, then qualified immunity should be granted. 2. Whether Eng’s Rights Were Clearly Established a. … established’ to preclude qualified immunity.”

Sabir v. District of Columbia

755 A.2d 449 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 2000

Absent violation of “a clearly established right,”a police officer will not be subject to § 1983 liability. Id. at 1015. As the D.C. Circuit articulated the standard in Wardlaw v. … Generally, the review of a deniál of qualified immunity is a question of law — “whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions.” Mitchell v.

Walker v. Corizon Health

947 F.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 14, 2020

This court may choose to address either of the two qualified-immunity requirements first because, if “the plaintiff fails to establish either prong of the two-pronged qualified immunity standard, the defendant prevails on … immunity, the complaint must allege specific facts showing each defendant violated the defendant’s clearly established constitutional rights).

Henry H. Cunningham v. City of Wenatchee, and Robert R. Perez

345 F.3d 802 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 2003

The Court observed: Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery. … Qualified Immunity We review de novo Perez’s qualified immunity claim. Mena v. City of Simi Valley, 226 F.3d 1031, 1036 (9th Cir.2000).

Aluizio v. Van Kanegan

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 8, 2025

Qualified Immunity Van Kanegan argues he is entitled to qualified immunity because Aulizio cannot establish a violation of any clearly established constitutional right. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established