Case law

Michael Hampton v. State of California

83 F.4th 754 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 2023

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … To be clearly established, the relevant right must have been defined more narrowly.

Lopera v. Town of Coventry

652 F. Supp. 2d 203 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Sep 9, 2009

On this claim, the officers have asserted the defense of qualified immunity, which “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … immunity analysis, are more properly explored under the clearly established prong.

Katrina McGrew v. Sergeant Duncan

937 F.3d 664 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 4, 2019

Qualified immunity shields the officers from suit if (1) they did not violate any of McGrew’s constitutional rights or (2) the violated rights, if any, were not “clearly established” when they acted. Pearson v. … So whether they are entitled to qualified immunity turns on whether McGrew suffered an injury and whether the right she claims they violated was clearly established when they acted.

William Manery v. Jason Lee

124 F.4th 1073 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 7, 2025

An official will be protected by qualified immunity “un- less the plaintiff shows: ‘(1) that the official violated a statu- tory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the … It was not clearly established that Lieutenant Lee’s use of deadly force was unreasonable, and, accordingly, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Rodriguez v. Passinault

637 F.3d 675 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 25, 2011

Garner[, 471 U.S. 1 (1985),] provides a ‘clearly established’ right that fulfills the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.” Id. at 347. … Thus, Pierce is entitled to qualified immunity.” Id. at 878.

Jason Carter v. Mark Ludwick

139 F.4th 982 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 12, 2025

On count two, evidence concealment in violation of due process, the court granted qualified immunity because it was an “entirely novel claim” that was not clearly established. … Carter’s argument does not survive the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Garmon v. Lumpkin County

878 F.2d 1406 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 4, 1989

The district court granted defendants' motion for directed verdict based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity. For the reasons stated below, we reverse. 2 On January 22, 1986, Mrs. … Garmon's warrant was issued without probable cause he nevertheless is shielded from liability for damages under the rule of qualified immunity.

Vincent v. State Through Dept. of Corrections

468 So. 2d 1329 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 1985

Skinner examined an action brought pursuant to U.S.C. 42 § 1983, which permits government officials to raise a qualified immunity defense. … A plaintiff bringing forth a "1983 action" seeking damages for deprivation of statutory rights may overcome a defendant official's qualified immunity only by showing those rights were clearly established at the time of the

Kayla Robinson v. Angela Hawkins

937 F.3d 1128 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 5, 2019

In considering a defense of qualified immunity, the law must not be examined at a high level of generality: “The dispositive question is whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.” … Rulings declaring the violation of a “clearly established right” require careful attention, because “qualified immunity is important to ‘society as a whole,’ and because as ‘an immunity from suit,’ qualified immunity ‘is

Wendy Pauluk v. Glenn Savage

836 F.3d 1117 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 8, 2016

Qualified Immunity We apply a two-part analysis in qualified immunity cases. Kennedy, 439 F.3d at 1060 . … We conclude that the right was not clearly' established, and that Wojcik and Savage are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Krainski v. Nevada Ex Rel. Board of Regents

616 F.3d 963 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 2, 2010

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … As we have previously noted, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects state actors when the constitutional right at issue was not “clearly established” at the time of the actions at issue.

Wright v. City of Philadelphia

409 F.3d 595 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 6, 2005

violated was clearly established. … right was clearly established.”

Parker v. LeBlanc

73 F.4th 400 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 17, 2023

Qualified immunity involves answering two questions: (1) “whether the officer violated a constitutional right,” and (2) “whether the ‘right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of [the] alleged misconduct. … Unlike the plaintiffs in Joseph, Parker identified cases in his district court briefing, as well as in his briefing to this court, that addressed the clearly-established-law prong of the qualified immunity analysis

Jones v. Buckner

963 F. Supp. 2d 1267 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Aug 9, 2013

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson v. … However, the Eleventh Circuit has “held time and again that clearly established general principles of law will seldom if ever suffice to strip a defendant of qualified immunity.” Harbert Intern., Inc. v.

Lareños En Defensa Del Patrimonio Historico, Inc. v. Municipality of Lares

882 F. Supp. 2d 286 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 6, 2012

immunity because a reasonable person in defendant’s position would have known that his actions violated clearly established law. … Whether the Plaintiffs’ Right was Clearly Established The second prong of the test for qualified immunity requires the Court to determine whether the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights were clearly established at the time

Robbins v. Wilkie

433 F.3d 755 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 10, 2006

That is, even if the right to exclude is clearly established, they are still entitled to qualified immunity because the right to be free from retaliation in the private property context is not clearly established. … Robbins has thus sufficiently alleged a violation of his clearly established Fifth Amendment rights, and Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Robbins' Bivens claim. 2.

Henderson v. Lewis

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 10, 2019

clearly established statutory or 23 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified 25 immunity, courts must consider (1) whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right, 26 and (2) whether that right was “clearly established

Blakely v. Andrade

360 F. Supp. 3d 453 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 23, 2019

If the court answers both the constitutional violation and clearly established questions in the affirmative, the officer is not entitled to qualified immunity. Lytle , 560 F.3d at 410 . … For purposes of qualified immunity, "clearly established" means that the "contours of the right" are "sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right."

Angela Johnson v. H.S. Caudill

475 F.3d 645 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 2, 2007

Because a reasonable official in Sheriff Caudill’s position would not have considered the termination to violate Johnson’s clearly established constitutional rights, however, we find Sheriff Caudill entitled to qualified … “Absent clearly established law that proscribe[s] [an official’s] specific conduct, [he] should not be subjected to suit.” Id.

People of Michigan v. Richard Lee Hartwick

Michigan Supreme Court · Jul 27, 2015

not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. … required to establish immunity.