Case law

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

Goodwin v. City of Fultondale

706 So. 2d 766 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Oct 17, 1997

immunity because their actions violated clearly established constitutional law. … Clearly, the above testimony, alone, is insufficient to establish that Officer Hamilton was *Page 770 acting pursuant to a well-established municipal policy or custom.

(PC) Castellano v. Shrum

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 17, 2023

Legal Standard – Qualified Immunity 13 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 14 violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Ramirez–Palmer, 25 301 F.3d 1043, 1053 (9th Cir. 2002). 26 “For the second step in the qualified immunity analysis—whether the constitutional right 27 was clearly established at

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.

Norton v. Hall

834 A.2d 928 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 30, 2003

of qualified immunity. … Even if the Nortons had produced facts sufficient to support a constitutional claim, Hall would be entitled to qualified immunity because, given the information she possessed, her conduct “does not violate clearly established

Owens v. Baltimore City State's Attorneys Office

767 F.3d 379 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 24, 2014

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for “civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … In evaluating whether qualified immunity exists, we must keep in mind that it is the plaintiffs constitutional right that must be clearly established, not a plaintiffs access to a monetary remedy.

Liebenstein v. Crowe

826 F. Supp. 1174 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Sep 4, 1992

Once a public official has raised the defense of qualified immunity,, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of the clearly established right that he claims was violated. Abel v. … The use of expert testimony is particularly ill-suited to defeat qualified immunity, especially when there is no clearly established law that the defendants violated.

Maldonado v. Marthenz

District Court, D. New Mexico · Jan 18, 2024

For federal habeas petitions brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), Strickland is clearly established federal law. … See Williams, 529 U.S. at 390 (“It is past question that the rule set forth in Strickland qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.’”).

Pethtel v. West Virginia State Police

568 F. Supp. 2d 658 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Jul 29, 2008

Qualified immunity is abrogated only upon a showing that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right and that such right was clearly established at the time the conduct occurred. Id. … Furthermore, even if the plaintiff had established a constitutional injury, the supervisors are entitled to qualified immunity because, as discussed above, such injury was not clearly established at the time. E.

Devin Ledbetter v. B. Helmers

133 F.4th 788 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 3, 2025

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity “if their actions do not ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Wilson v. … Franklin, 388 F.3d 578, 582 (8th Cir. 2004) (noting that “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity protects officials from liability from “bad guesses in gray areas” (citation omitted)).

Chadha v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital

272 Conn. 776 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Feb 15, 2005

qualified immunity pursuant to General Statutes §§ 19a-20 and 19a-17b. … In its memorandum of decision, the court concluded that the defendants were protected by qualified immunity, pursuant to §§ 19a-20 and 19a-17b, and that qualified immunity and not absolute immunity applied to the defendants

Bishop v. Hackel

636 F.3d 757 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 1, 2011

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from civil liability unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional … a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection v. Environmental Corp. of America

720 So. 2d 273 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 16, 1998

Qualified immunity shields government actors from personal liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established rights. See Vermette v. … In light of the Environmental Trust decision, we conclude that the individual defendants here are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Lytle v. Bexar County, Tex.

560 F.3d 404 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 25, 2009

The Clearly Established Right At the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry, we ask whether the violated constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation. … The right in question was therefore clearly established on February 28, 2006, and this is sufficient to affirmatively answer the qualified immunity question of our inquiry.

Timmon v. Wood

633 F. Supp. 2d 453 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Apr 21, 2008

Applying those clearly established rules to this case, the dispositive issue with respect to qualified immunity is whether Defendants acted with the intent to silence Plaintiff’s viewpoint or whether they acted with the intent … If Defendants acted with intent to silence Plaintiffs viewpoint then they violated clearly established law and would not be entitled to qualified immunity.

DANIELS v. COOKE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 12, 2022

In other words, qualified immunity is appropriate when the clearly established law, as applied to the facts, "would have left objectively reasonable officials in a state of uncertainty." Horshaw v. … Under some "extraordinary circumstances," an official may be entitled to qualified immunity based on reasonable ignorance of clearly established law governing the official's conduct. Harlow v.

Self v. City of Mansfield

369 F. Supp. 3d 684 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 26, 2019

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 … a clearly established constitutional right.

Benjamin Fogle and Amanda Fogle, on behalf of minor child P.F. v. Clay Elementary School-Southeast Polk Community School District, Dirk Halupnik, Andrea Burns and Carla Rivas, individually and in their official capacities with Southeast Polk Community School District

Supreme Court of Iowa · Nov 14, 2025

Supp. 3d at 891–94.  9 illegality of the municipal employee’s actions was not clearly established when the employee acted. Iowa Code § 670.4A(1). … As a couplet, when the substantive qualified immunity defense is inapplicable, then the heightened qualified immunity pleading standard is also inapplicable.” Id. at 805.

Steven Taylor v. Robert Caples

2 F.4th 1124 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 1, 2021

Because material disputes of fact must be resolved before we can reach the legal argument of whether Caples’s conduct violates clearly established law, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. I. … violated a clearly established federal right.

Dana Ault v. Leslie Speicher

634 F.3d 942 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 3, 2011

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects govern- ment officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not clearly violate established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … On a qualified immunity claim the court confronts two questions: (1) whether the plain- tiff’s allegations make out a deprivation of a constitu- tional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly estab- lished at the time