Case law

Armstrong v. City of Melvindale

432 F.3d 695 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 6, 2006

But where, as here, Defendants do not dispute the facts—they claim instead that the alleged facts do not reflect a violation of clearly established law—“a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity . . . is … right was clearly established.”

Meyer v. State

292 Or. App. 647 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 5, 2018

immunity on those claims, because none of those rights were clearly established. … The right in question was clearly established at the relevant time. As a result, Niswender and Sugahara were not entitled to qualified immunity.

Tanya Martin v. City of Broadview Heights

712 F.3d 951 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 9, 2013

Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … The sources of clearly established law to be considered are limited.

Gallaher v. Goldsmith

213 F. Supp. 2d 496 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 2002

When analyzing a qualified immunity claim, a court must first identify the constitutional or statutory right at stake and then determine if that right was clearly established at the time the defendants violated those rights … Because plaintiff pled a valid constitutional right he has satisfied the first prong of the qualified immunity inquiry. It must next be determined if that right was “clearly established.”

Colston v. Ala. Agric. & Mech. Univ. (In re Hugine)

256 So. 3d 30 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Mar 17, 2017

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Anderson [v. Creighton , 483 U.S. 635 ,] 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 [ (1987) ]." Pearson v. … "Because pre-existing law did not provide fair warning to Appellees that demoting Rioux under these circumstances would violate clearly established federal law, Appellees are entitled to qualified immunity."

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Oct 17, 2003

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an individual is immune if the actions complained of were taken in good faith in the performance of one's duties, and the acts do not violate any clearly established constitutional … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Id. ; Robinson v.

Rios v. City of Azusa

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 20, 2026

OPINION MILLER, Circuit Judge: In an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, we may consider “whether the facts establish a violation of a clearly … In such an appeal, we may review “whether the facts establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, thus defeating qualified immunity.” Peck, 51 F.4th at 885.

Green v. City of New York

465 F.3d 65 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 5, 2006

immunity. 12 The defense of qualified immunity and the merits of the alleged constitutional violations are intertwined because the first step in a qualified immunity analysis is determining "in the light most favorable to … Giblin is entitled to qualified immunity for the seizure he directed unless (1) Walter's constitutional right to be free from seizure was clearly established, and (2) it was objectively unreasonable for Giblin to believe

Rodis v. City & County of San Francisco

558 F.3d 964 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 9, 2009

demonstrated a violation of clearly established law.” … The arrest, therefore, was not clearly established as unlawful. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

Anderson v. Village of Forest Park

238 Ill. App. 3d 83 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 28, 1992

In addition, she argues that the Harlow immunity did not apply when the discretionary act violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … Because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, defendants had the burden of proving either that the law was not clearly established or, if the law was clearly established, that defendants neither knew nor should have

Mueller v. Auker

576 F.3d 979 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 10, 2009

by the Court of Appeals — that Mitchell’s actions violated clearly established law....” … The legal issues involved in that appeal-whether Aguilar violated clearly established constitutional protections— are identical to those governing the question of Aguilar’s qualified immunity.

Foster v. Runnels

554 F.3d 807 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 5, 2009

The District Court however found that Cole was entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right in question was not clearly established. … Clearly Established Right The District Court found that Cole was entitled to qualified immunity because the Eighth Amendment right to adequate food was not clearly established such that it would be clear to a reasonable corrections

Ware v. James City County, Virginia

652 F. Supp. 2d 693 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Sep 4, 2009

Defendants further argue that, even assuming that the arrest was unconstitutional, they are entitled to qualified immunity because the rights which Defendants allegedly violated were not clearly established at the time of … Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the Court must determine whether the right alleged to have been violated was a clearly established right, such that a reasonable police officer would have known,

Katz v. United States

194 F.3d 962 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 22, 1999

On the issue of qualified immunity, the district court held that the law governing the use of force in an arrest was clearly established. … A defendant will always be entitled to qualified immunity when the law governing his or her conduct was not clearly established -the first prong of the qualified immunity defense. 30 As a fallback position, Saucier argues

Cortezz Dickerson v. William Bower

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Feb 21, 2025

DISPOSITIVE ORDER FINDING QUALIFIED OFFICIAL IMMUNITY AND THE PROPER STANDARD OF REVIEW Appellees asserted in their answer to the complaint the affirmative defense of qualified official immunity … Appellees were entitled to qualified immunity from the torts Appellants alleged against them.

State ex rel. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources v. Kaufman

203 W. Va. 56 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1998

from suit based upon (1) statutory immunity; (2) quasi-judicial immunity; (3) common-law doctrine of qualified immunity and no violation of a clearly established right; and (4) absence of duty based upon the public duty … ; (3) common-law doctrine of qualified immunity and no violation of a clearly established right; and (4) absence of duty based upon the public duty doctrine.

Lichtenstein v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist.

316 F. Supp. 3d 855 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2018

"The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was 'clearly established' at the time of the violation." Id. at 1866 . … of controlling authority in our jurisdiction or a robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority in the Courts of Appeals [that] could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity."

Rich v. City of Mayfield Heights

955 F.2d 1092 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 1992

To determine if the defendant police officers’ actions violated any clearly established constitutional rights such that they would not be entitled to rely on qualified immunity, it is necessary for the Court to decide (1) … We held that: [T]he rights the district court cites as having been clearly established were not particularized rights as required by Anderson and, thus, were not sufficient to deny the defendants qualified immunity.

Von Stein v. Brescher

696 F. Supp. 606 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 5, 1988

, their conduct violated “clearly established law.” … Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 194-95 , 104 S.Ct. 3012, 3019-20 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984), any claim to qualified immunity would not be lost merely for the violation of the clearly established law embodied in that statute.

McGuire v. County of Hawai'i. Concurring Opinion by Ginoza, J, filed 04/08/2025 [ada].

Hawaii Supreme Court · Apr 8, 2025

Rafe Foreman, Qualified Immunity: A Legal Fiction That Has Outlived Utility, 48 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 503, 519 (2022). The good faith test evolved to a clearly-established-law test. Harlow v. … Qualified immunity whitewashes civil rights deprivations by excusing bad-acting officials from liability so long as their conduct does not offend a clearly established right.