Case law

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

P.F. v. Mendres

21 F. Supp. 2d 476 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 29, 1998

Generally speaking, “[ujnless plaintiffs allegations state a claim of a violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” … established right occurred; Judge Greenberg would have ended qualified immunity analysis at that stage of the inquiry).

Carter v. Broome County

District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 21, 2019

Supp. 3d 305, 316 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (finding clearly established for qualified immunity purposes the "broader right to be free from deliberate indifference to serious medical needs" and applying it to pre-trial detainee). … True or not, qualified immunity would not attach to those facts.

Creech Poole v. City of Shreveport

13 F.4th 420 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 10, 2021

Qualified immunity shields officers from liability unless their conduct violates a clearly established federal right of which a reasonable person would have known. Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. … of clearly established law.

Terry v. Cnty. of Milwaukee

357 F. Supp. 3d 732 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jan 11, 2019

The test for qualified immunity is (1) whether the defendants' alleged actions violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (2) "whether the implicated right was clearly established at the time." Jones v. … Therefore, if Bevenue did ignore Terry's cries for help as she went into labor, qualified immunity would not protect Bevenue from suit because "qualified immunity does not insulate state actors from violations of clearly

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,

Campbell v. Burt

949 F. Supp. 1461 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Jun 14, 1996

Qualified Immunity For Defendant’s Failure to File a Timely Petition 19. An official is entitled to qualified immunity if the right which he allegedly violated is not “clearly established.” Anderson v. … established for purposes of qualified immunity.

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.

Atherton v. District of Columbia Office of the Mayor

813 F. Supp. 2d 78 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2011

"If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity." Id. … Marshal protected by qualified immunity where “the law in 2002 did not clearly establish that strip searching all male arrestees prior to placement in holding cells at the Superior Court violated the Fourth Amendment.”)

Bird v. Dzurenda

131 F.4th 787 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 13, 2025

We conclude that such a challenge fails to allege a violation of clearly established law and reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. I. … “[I]n the prison context,” we have said that the “prohibition against retaliatory punishment” may violate “clearly established law” for qualified immunity purposes. Chavez v.

Kyle v. Bedlion

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 1, 2016

Sergeant Bedlion Is Entitled To Qualified Immunity With Respect To Kyle’s Excessive-Force Claim Because It Was Not Clearly Established That Bedlion’s Use Of Force Violated Kyle’s Fourth Amendment … violated a clearly established right[.]” Muhammad, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 122. Therefore, Bedlion is entitled to qualified immunity on Kyle’s excessive -force claim. B.

Degolia v. Kenton Cnty.

381 F. Supp. 3d 740 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · May 7, 2019

For an alleged right to be clearly established, the doctrine of qualified immunity "do[es] not require a case directly on point, but existing precedent must have placed the ... constitutional question beyond debate." … . *772 But because Branstutter violated a clearly established constitutional right, a jury could conclude he acted in bad faith. Therefore, Branstutter is not entitled to qualified official immunity. B.

Pray v. City of Sandusky

49 F.3d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 21, 1995

In other words, qualified immunity is appropriate either on the basis that the right allegedly violated was not at the time “clearly established,” or if “clearly established,” was one that a “reasonable” person in the defendant … Thus, when a defendant moves for summary • judgment based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must: 1) identify a clearly established right alleged to have been violated; and 2) establish that a reasonable officer in the

McGrew v. Duncan

333 F. Supp. 3d 730 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 10, 2018

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity where their actions do not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Greene v. … This right was "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes at the time McGrew was placed in handcuffs. Id. (citation omitted).

Trenisha Webster v. Jennifer Westlake

41 F.4th 1004 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 27, 2022

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity in § 1983 lawsuits unless they violated a federal “statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.” City & Cnty. of S.F. v. … Although the detectives violated Webster’s Fourth Amendment rights, they are entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established on October 16, 2018. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 244.

Karen Bonitz v. Michael v. Fair, Karen Bonitz v. Michael v. Fair, Appeal of William Shaughnessy

804 F.2d 164 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 3, 1986

When a government official asserts a defense of qualified immunity, his argument is that, even assuming the plaintiff’s allegations are true, he is immune from suit because the law allegedly violated was not clearly established … ” were clearly established.

Powers v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

105 F. Supp. 2d 1295 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Jul 5, 2000

The firsU — to honor the policies undergird-ing qualified immunity by disposing of cases quickly on legal grounds — is equally applicable to the “clearly established” inquiry. … “In this circuit, the law can be 'clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Pyle v. Woods

874 F.3d 1257 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 1, 2017

Database was not clearly established. … As in the Pyle matter, the district court concluded Detective Woods and Mayor Cullimore were entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right at issue was not clearly established.

Hartley Ex Rel. Hartley v. Parnell

193 F.3d 1263 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 28, 1999

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … (The second inquiry is whether the violated federal right, if any, was clearly established.)

Smith v. Coughlin

727 F. Supp. 834 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 28, 1989

The remainder of this case must nevertheless be disposed of on qualified immunity grounds. 7 State officials are immune from suits for damages 8 alleging constitutional violations if it was not clearly established at the … The court further held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the officials had not violated clearly established law, citing three reasons: (1) the defendant prison officials could reasonably have