Case law

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”).

David Roberts v. City of Omaha

723 F.3d 966 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 31, 2013

There is no clearly established law indicating Roberts’s suggested rights applied in the circumstances of this case. The district court should have granted the officers qualified immunity on these claims. … City of Minneapolis, 596 F.3d 465, 482 (8th Cir. 2010) (explaining under “qualified immunity, a county employee may be held personally liable for a constitutional violation only if his own conduct violated a clearly established

Plummer v. Department of Corrections

305 N.J. Super. 365 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 25, 1997

reasonable, thereby entitling them to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … However, the fact that the law at issue is clearly established will not deprive these defendants from the qualified immunity defense if, in light of the specific facts known to them, they could reasonably believe that probable

Mabry ex rel. T.M. v. Lee County

100 F. Supp. 3d 568 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Mar 30, 2015

In order to overcome a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff is required to demonstrate “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time … Officer Fant is accordingly entitled to qualified immunity.

Weinstein v. City of North Bay Village

977 F. Supp. 2d 1271 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 26, 2013

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials acting within their discretionary authority are immune from suit unless the official’s conduct ‘violates clearly established federal statutory or constitutional … The Alleged Constitutional Violations Were Clearly Established For Weinstein to avoid qualified immunity, he must allege that Schwartz violated a clearly established law. See Keating, 598 F.3d at 762 .

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.

Strickland v. City of Crenshaw

114 F. Supp. 3d 400 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jul 20, 2015

in qualified immunity cases. … Thus, plaintiffs are clearly unable to survive a qualified immunity defense with regard to any property damage claims. .

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.

Doe v. Connecticut Department of Children & Youth Services

712 F. Supp. 277 · District Court, D. Connecticut · May 17, 1989

Qualified Immunity Qualified or “good faith” immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability to the extent that their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Gerhardt v. Mares

179 F. Supp. 3d 1006 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jan 20, 2016

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis. … WOODS DID NOT VIOLATE GER-HARDT’S CLEARLY ESTABLISHED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND IS THUS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.

Blair Hays v. J. Gastelo

District Court, C.D. California · May 4, 2021

Qualified Immunity 20 Courts recognize qualified immunity “to balance competing values: not only the 21] importance of a damages remedy to protect the rights of citizens . . . but also ‘the need to protect … As 28 such, “[o]nce the official pleads qualified immunity, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove two elements: (1) that the right was violated; and (2) that the right was clearly established at the 2| time

Ledea v. Metro-Dade County Police Department

681 F. App'x 728 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 27, 2017

To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id. at 1137 . … The officers do not assert the district court erred in its resolution of the second prong of qualified immunity—that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Paulette Smith v. Edward Agdeppa

81 F.4th 994 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 30, 2023

immunity analysis—whether the claimed unlawfulness of Agdeppa’s conduct was “clearly established … We are asked to decide whether this officer is entitled to qualified immunity. We hold that he is. The officer’s use of deadly force did not violate clearly established law.

Hernandez v. Wells

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 20, 2022

immunity on summary judgment because his qualified immunity turned on a dispute of fact). … “Falsifying facts to establish probable cause is clearly unconstitutional and has been ‘clearly established’ long before [Hernandez’s] arrest.” Mead v. McKeithen, 571 F. App’x 788, 792 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam).

Dana West v. Susan Murphy

771 F.3d 209 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 14, 2014

Determining whether qualified immunity applies involves a two-prong inquiry: “whether the facts ... make out a violation of a constitutional right” and “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of … This temporal element inheres in qualified immunity because the inquiry into “clearly established law” is tethered to the need for notice.

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.

Charles Mitchell v. Josh Shearrer

729 F.3d 1070 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 10, 2013

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known … Our second inquiry in considering the denial of qualified immunity is whether the right violated was clearly established. Whether the facts alleged support such a claim is a legal question for the court to decide.

Coollick v. Hughes

699 F.3d 211 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 24, 2012

-1- Plaintiff-Appellee’s clearly established rights. Defendant-Appellant is, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity. … We hold that Hughes’s conduct in this case, even when viewed in the light most favorable to Coollick, did not violate Coollick’s clearly established rights. Hughes is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Hannah David v. Gina Kaulukukui

38 F.4th 792 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 2022

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages unless their conduct “violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Williamson v. … To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, the court asks “(1) whether the [official’s] conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the

Edmiston v. City Of Port Angeles

360 F. Supp. 3d 1147 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 21, 2018

Therefore, in the absence of authority demonstrating that the right was clearly established, Officer Brusseau is entitled to qualified immunity. … Nor can Edmiston negate that Officer Brusseau is entitled to qualified immunity on the search issue, if a search indeed occurred, in the absence of clearly established law.