Case law

Molloy v. Blanchard

907 F. Supp. 46 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Nov 22, 1995

Chief Blanchard Qualified immunity shields government officials who are performing discretionary functions “from [personal] liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Even where the law is “clearly established,” qualified immunity may apply if the government official can prove “extraordinary circumstances” such that he or she “neither knew nor should have known of the relevant legal standard

Barbara Donald v. Tyler Norris

131 F.4th 1255 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 13, 2025

We need address only whether Burrell’s right to some other treatment was clearly established because that answer resolves the qualified-immunity question. … Indeed, the formulation from the Hill dicta would eliminate the “clearly established” part of the qualified-immunity analysis as we know it.

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.”)

Gloria Jean Harper, Individually and as Mother and Next Friend of Jordan Harper a Minor and Jordan Harper v. Harris County, Texas, John P. Denholm

21 F.3d 597 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 28, 1994

Qualified immunity protects a police officer from liability if a reasonable competent law enforcement officer would not have known that his actions violated clearly established law. Anderson v. … The examination of a claim of qualified immunity is a two-step process. The first inquiry is whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional' right. Siegert v.

Amato v. City of Richmond

875 F. Supp. 1124 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Dec 15, 1994

Qualified immunity is also appropriate because it is not clearly established how the law would apply to Hosiek’s conduct. He spoke with the Chief Magistrate after another magistrate had denied Acola a warrant. … Hosick’s decisions in this grey area are protected by the qualified immunity doctrine. Amato has cited no authority explaining what clearly established law this conduct violated.

Farry v. City of Pawtucket

725 F. Supp. 2d 286 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Apr 13, 2010

Where the law is not sufficiently clear to provide such warning to an officer that he or she is violating plaintiffs rights, qualified immunity is appropriate; however, if the law is clearly established, the Court then considers … Mattox, 127 F.3d 1416 (11th Cir.1997) to hold that for purposes of qualified immunity analysis, the law was clearly established “that it was unconstitutional for police offi *302 cers to increase their use of physical force

Musso v. Hourigan

836 F.2d 736 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 5, 1988

In reaching this result, the Court noted that the doctrine of qualified immunity rests on the belief that "where an official's duties legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated, the … Qualified Immunity 16 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a government official performing discretionary functions is protected from personal liability to the extent that his "conduct does not violate clearly established

Bass v. Coughlin

800 F. Supp. 1066 · District Court, N.D. New York · Dec 11, 1991

“Once qualified immunity is pleaded, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed unless defendant’s alleged conduct, when committed, violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … While the right to a kosher diet was “clearly established” during the time in question, the magistrate judge correctly concluded that summary judgment was not proper on the qualified immunity question.

Smith v. Cochran

339 F.3d 1205 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 12, 2003

In addition, the court denied summary judgment on Cochran’s claim of qualified immunity because it found that the constitutional violation Smith alleged was clearly established at the time of the claimed violation. … Because Cochran argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity under the plaintiff’s version of the facts, focusing on the legal issue whether the constitutional right he allegedly violated was clearly established, we

Phillips v. Roane County, Tenn.

534 F.3d 531 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2008

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 … Was the Law Clearly Established?

Kirk Wayne McBride, Sr. v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Aug 28, 2008

Government officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity from a suit for damages so long as the official's conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a … Qualified immunity shields an officer if a reasonable officer could have believed the action to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed. Hunter v .

Irizarry v. Yehia

38 F.4th 1282 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 11, 2022

The district court nonetheless held that Officer Yehia was entitled to qualified immunity because Mr. Irizarry had not shown a violation of clearly established law. … Irizarry has shown a violation of clearly established law. Officer Yehia is not entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Dillard v. City of Springdale, Arkansas

930 F.3d 935 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 12, 2019

“An individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Estate of Walker v. … Absent either a clearly established right or a constitutional violation, qualified immunity applies. See Estate of Walker, 881 F.3d at 1060. We apply the same standard to claims under the Arkansas Constitution.

Jaeger v. Dubuque County

880 F. Supp. 640 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Mar 18, 1995

The standard for qualified immunity is that “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Delo, 999 F.2d 364, 366 (8th Cir.1993) (first step in qualified immunity analysis was determination of whether conduct violated any clearly established right).

Parsons v. Wright

649 A.2d 1108 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 10, 1994

Whether the Wrights are entitled to a qualified immunity is a question of law for the court. … The application of the qualified immunity doctrine turns on the “objective legal reasonableness” of the official’s action viewed in light of the “clearly established” legal rules at the time the action was taken.

Acoff v. Abston

762 F.2d 1543 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 12, 1985

Abston invokes a qualified immunity from suit due to his “good faith” reliance on a City policy that was not clearly unconstitutional at the time of the shooting; the judgment in favor of all defendants could stand if this … The retroactive effect of Garner does not necessarily resolve the related issue of Officer Abston’s qualified immunity.

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.

Uduko v. Cozzens

975 F. Supp. 2d 750 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 27, 2013

Plaintiff goes on to argue that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff pled that his rights that were violated were clearly established at the time of defendants’ conduct. … Of course, those rights are clearly established. However, if courts define rights at such a broad level, qualified immunity will virtually cease to exist. Therefore, in Anderson v.

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

Williams v. Pate

463 S.W.3d 734 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 20, 2015

Appellees filed an answer asserting the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … of qualified immunity.