Case law

State Ex Rel. Wilhoit v. Seay

248 S.W.3d 135 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 2008

Again, both Jones and Walker are public officials entitled to qualified immunity unless their immunity was lost through conduct violating a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person … Wood, therefore, has failed to allege facts that adequately prove that Jones and Walker lost their qualified immunity by violating a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

BROWN v. ROBINETT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 19, 2021

"Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Fleming v. … Clearly, an entitlement to qualified immunity cannot be established by the mere incantation of magic words, purportedly buttressed by endless pages of quotes relating to the doctrine. Arguably, Ms.

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”).

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

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

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.

Bedinghaus v. Modern Graphic Arts

15 F.3d 1027 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 9, 1994

Clearly, “the company” refers to the Times and its affiliates, not to some entity that happens to purchase the assets of one of the affiliates. We see no ambiguity in the crucial terms. … As the First Circuit said in Bellino: Federal courts have established no hard and fast rule that an individual must suffer a period of unemployment to qualify for severance benefits under ERISA.

Sinaloa Lake Owners Ass'n v. City of Simi Valley

70 F.3d 1095 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 30, 1995

While the right to due process is “clearly established” by the Due Process Clause, this level of generality was not intended to satisfy the qualified immunity standard. … that the law was clearly established, Doody was nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because “a reasonable dam safety engineering official, similarly situated, could have believed breaching the dam was lawful.”

Patsy Talley v. Dale Folwell

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 4, 2025

established, and thus defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.” … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the

Carney v. Miller

Nebraska Supreme Court · Feb 14, 2014

Qualified immunity provides a shield from liability for public officials sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) in their individual capacity, so long as an official’s conduct does not vio- late clearly established … Whether an official may prevail in his or her qualified immunity defense depends upon the objective reasonableness of his or her conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law. 12.

Rainey v. Hartness

339 Ark. 293 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 2, 1999

Qualified Immunity — Federal Law Generally, government officials performing discretionary functions are granted a qualified immunity from suit under section 1983 and are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar … Courts evaluating a claim of immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and, if so, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

Vincent v. Yelich

812 F. Supp. 2d 276 · District Court, W.D. New York · Aug 29, 2011

The defense of qualified immunity shields public officials from an action for civil damages, to the extent that their challenged acts do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Because the defendants’ actions did not violate any constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violations, they are entitled to qualified immunity. *282 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons

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.

Hall v. Conklin

966 F. Supp. 546 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Apr 1, 1996

In assessing qualified immunity, a defendant’s action is analyzed “in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” Anderson v. … And if a plaintiff fails altogether to state a claim of violation of clearly established law, defendants are entitled to dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity. Cameron v.

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.

Charles Mozzochi v. Richard S. Borden, Jr., Paul J. Gibbons, Richard S. Borden, Jr., Paul J. Gibbons, Town of Glastonbury

959 F.2d 1174 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 19, 1992

Because the district court framed the qualified immunity question too generally, it wrongly concluded that the defendant officials’ alleged actions violated clearly established constitutional rights. … Because it held that the defendants’ motive and conduct, if proven, violated clearly established rights, the district court rejected the defendants’ summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity.

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.

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.

Gregory Baldwin v. City of Estherville, Iowa Matt Reineke, Individually and in His Official Capacity as an Officer of the Estherville Police Department and Matt Hellickson, Individually and in His Official Capacity as an Officer of the Estherville Police Department

915 N.W.2d 259 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jun 29, 2018

to believe that their actions would not violate a clearly established right of the plaintiff's under the circumstances." 284 Conn. 502 , 935 A.2d 126 , 144 (2007). … Qualified immunity would be available "if the defendant show[ed] that the state constitutional right alleged to have been violated was not clearly established." Id. at 1094 .