Case law

Williams v. Bitner

359 F. Supp. 2d 370 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2005

This doctrine, known as “qualified immunity,” provides not only a defense to liability, but “immunity from suit.” Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 , 112 S.Ct. 534 , 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991); Mitchell v. … And none are protected by qualified immunity.

Lisa Boggess, as administrator of the Estate of Brent Boggess, and as next friend to minors Z.B. and J.B., Drake L. Boggess, individually, and Kim Buttshaw, individually v. City of Waterloo and Kenneth Schaff

Supreme Court of Iowa · May 1, 2026

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (holding qualified immunity shields a government official from individual liability when his conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Denise Brown v. State of New Jersey (076656) (Cumberland County and Statewide)

230 N.J. 84 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 24, 2017

In this matter, defendants raised the defense of qualified immunity in connection with their motion for summary judgment, arguing that McArthur applied and provided “the only clearly established, constitutional standard” … established at the time of his conduct, we conclude that Detective Steet is entitled to qualified immunity.

Taylor v. LeBlanc

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 15, 2023

LeBlanc appeals the denial of qualified immunity arguing, inter alia, that his conduct wasn’t objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … Lambert, 921 F.3d 215, 219 (5th Cir. 2019) (qualified immunity turns on whether defendant’s conduct is “objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law”); Hinojosa v.

Joseph Zadeh v. Mari Robinson

928 F.3d 457 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 2, 2019

Clearly established law for qualified immunity To summarize, we have concluded there was a violation of Dr. Zadeh’s constitutional rights. … But owing to a legal deus ex machina—the “clearly established” prong of qualified-immunity analysis— the violation eludes vindication.

Dale Singleton v. Commw. of Ky.

843 F.3d 238 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 6, 2016

violated clearly established federal law. … But in this instance our decision has less to do with traditional qualified immunity disputes—especially the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity inquiry—and more to do with the Supremacy Clause.

Charles Lewis v. Kimberly Gardner

932 F.3d 646 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 26, 2019

Gardner moved to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that she was entitled to qualified immunity because the complaint did not establish how she was personally involved in violating a clearly established constitutional … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity if her conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. White v. Pauly, 137 S.

Gittens v. Sullivan

720 F. Supp. 40 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 19, 1989

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability as long as their actions are discretionary in nature and do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should … The explicit requirements of Wolff are clearly established constitutional rights.

Isayeva v. Sacramento Sheriff's Department

872 F.3d 938 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 2, 2017

Qualified immunity involves two questions: (1) whether the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See Pearson v. … Instead, we rest our holding on the second prong of qualified immunity, that Tereschenko held no clearly established right not to be shot by Deputy Barry.

McGuinness v. Dubois

893 F. Supp. 2 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 14, 1995

The defendants argued that, with the claim so limited, they were entitled to qualified immunity as matter of law. Upon consideration of the arguments presented, this Court agrees. … Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1457-58 (9th Cir.1993), the state of the law in this area does not clearly establish that the conditions of McGuinness’ confinement violated the Constitution.

Dawn Crawford v. John Tilley

15 F.4th 752 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 8, 2021

To be fair, most statements of this proposition are careful to explain that its application rests on qualified immunity’s clearly established prong. See, e.g., Hart v. … This reluctance to dismiss cases on qualified immunity might have more vitality in the clearly established context, which Iqbal did not cover. But even there, the inquiry is nuanced.

Rutha Carroll v. Harris County

800 F.3d 154 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 26, 2015

In the qualified-immunity context, we review only the “purely legal question whether a given course of conduct would be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” … The court held that the use of force was excessive, but concluded that, as of 2004, the law was not clearly established and granted qualified immunity. Id. at 448.

Grant v. City of Pittsburgh

98 F.3d 116 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 18, 1996

The Court in Anderson held that to defeat qualified immunity it is not sufficient that the right at issue be clearly established as a general matter. … violated clearly established federal law."

Melvin Eugene Duckworth v. John H. Ford, Richard C. Rice

995 F.2d 858 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 15, 1993

For reversal, Ford argues the district court erred in denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity because the alleged action neither violated any clearly established law regarding a constitutional right, nor constituted … Ford finally argued he was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in 1988 that spreading rumors could give rise to a violation of first amendment rights.

Redd v. Wright

597 F.3d 532 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 10, 2010

Redd’s alleged due process right was not 7 clearly established at the time of the violation, and therefore 8 the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. 9 First, as previously discussed, it … Thus, the defendants are 20 entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Redd’s claim based 21 on the procedures for curtailing the duration of confinement. 22 Nor was it clearly established that Redd was

Debrew v. Auman

354 F. App'x 639 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 25, 2009

“[T]he qualified-immunity defense shields government agents from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Because the complaint failed to disclose whether the defendants’ actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, dismissal on qualified immunity grounds was premature.

Stuard Wegener v. City of Covington and Joseph Condit, City Solicitor, Lt. Joan Penick (90-5765) and Capt. Gilbert McClure (90-5716)

933 F.2d 390 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 16, 1991

Analysis A public official is entitled to qualified immunity for conduct in performing discretionary functions so long as that conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … When ruling on qualified immunity, the district court should indicate the clearly established right at issue and the factual basis for its conclusion that a genuine issue exists as to the commission of acts violating that

James Ross v. City of Jackson, Missouri

897 F.3d 916 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 26, 2018

The district court granted the officers summary judgment, reasoning that they were entitled to qualified immunity because the rights that Ross asserted had not been clearly established at the time that they were violated. … In determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity for a warrantless arrest—i.e., whether the Fourth Amendment right was clearly established—we have explained: An officer . . . is entitled to qualified

Michael Ostlund v. Robert C. Bobb, Edward J. Cooper, City of Santa Ana

825 F.2d 1371 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 21, 1987

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for damages arising from discretionary actions if the conduct of the officials “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Therefore, Bobb and Cooper are not entitled to qualified immunity. See McIntosh v.

Doyle v. Rondout Valley Central School District

3 A.D.3d 669 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 15, 2004

“A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her conduct does *671 not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … To be entitled to qualified immunity, Seals was required to establish that it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his conduct was appropriate under the circumstances, or that officers of reasonable competence